NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE DISSEMINATION OF DISABILITY RESEARCH (NCDDR) THE RESEARCH EXCHANGE Volume 2, Number 4, 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS A Word from the Director How Do Consumers Get Information They Can Use? Survey Process Preliminary Findings and Implications Grantee Recognition A WORD FROM THE DIRECTOR IS DISABILITY RESEARCH USEFUL? Millions of dollars are spent annually to support the design and implementation of activities that can be lumped under the general topic of "disability research." These activities tend to be far-flung and divergent in nature and often embrace a variety of information-generation, information-implementation, and information-dissemination efforts. Quite often, however, the intended "user" of the produced information is only vaguely defined or unknown. Research on effective dissemination has clearly pointed to several characteristics that are related to the utilization of information by intended user groups: Each user determines how and when she or he will (or will not) use information. Intended user groups must be defined well enough by the disseminator to know the context and content of information that is desired by the user. Information must be shared through a medium that the intended user deems to be accessible. The utilization of information usually requires more than a one-time exposure to basic information. Clearly, the extent to which a disseminator "understands" the intended users, the more likely the dissemination-utilization process is to be successful. All too often, dissemination is approached as an act of documentation. While documentation of research findings is important and inherently critical to potential use of the resulting information, it is not adequate as the predominant strategy and basis of effective dissemination and utilization. Grantees should not approach dissemination as if it were simply a matter of documentation of research results or findings. Effective dissemination is a process that requires a match between the time and content-related needs of the intended user, and the information that is available. It is virtually impossible to accomplish the goal of dissemination-utilization-without knowing how intended users typically access information that they use. The NCDDR has undertaken a survey activity to identify some of the information-utilization characteristics of people with disabilities and their families. It is hoped that these initial survey data are useful to NIDRR grantees in developing a dissemination plan involving outreach to consumer groups. This issue of The Research Exchange reveals some of the findings relevant to consumers' utilization characteristics. Also, I want to point out that the NCDDR survey data underscore the fact that consumers continue to have high regard for disability research. Mixed messages have been sent from some disability-related groups espousing that consumers could care less about disability research. It is important to know that consumers do care. It is also equally important to note that too many consumers appear to have limited or no dependable pathways to obtain information about disability research. A re-assessment of current dissemination strategies appears to be in order. John D. Westbrook, Ph.D. Director, NCDDR How Do Consumers Get Information They Can Use? Is disability research information useful to people with disabilities? If it is, where and how do they find it? Would the information be more useful if it were more accessible? The NCDDR recently conducted a nationwide survey of consumers to find answers to these and other related questions. While research results generally are available to those who seek them, they are not widely accessible to several critical audiences, namely persons with disabilities, their families, advocates, or direct service providers (Edwards, 1991). There is a critical distinction between availability-which may mean, for example, that a scholarly article may be found in a professional journal, or that a final report will be sent upon request-and accessibility, which implies ease of access and simplicity of comprehension and use. Better understanding of consumers' information gathering practices and preferences can help those who conduct NIDRR research to make their results more useful and accessible to consumers (SEDL, 1995). Edwards (1991) notes that finding the proper fit among the dissemination medium, user, and the knowledge or product "includes recognizing that no one channel is always sufficient" (p. 79). The media and formats available for dissemination are increasing rapidly with new technological development. This growth is helpful in meeting the need for numerous and varied dissemination media (SEDL, 1995). However, it is critical to keep in mind that "consumers continue to lack the basic tools required for accessing what is currently available" (Leung, 1992, p. 293). For example, computers may help 'level the field' of communications, but if consumers with disabilities cannot afford to own computers, this potential is not realized. In an effort to understand the tools consumers use and prefer, a literature search was undertaken. No literature was identified that directly asked consumers with disabilities how they find and access information that is useful to them. Similarly, an on-line search of the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) yielded no citations. The National Rehabilitation Information Center (NARIC), through its REHABADATA on-line database (http://www.cais.com/naric/rehabdata/rehabdata.html), offered four citations focusing on Participatory Action Research as a means of involving consumers in rehabilitation research, but with little emphasis on dissemination and utilization. Newman and Vash (1994) prepared a report for the National Council on Rehabilitation Education. As part of this report, the authors noted that dissemination efforts of NIDRR grantees have been more successful in reaching other professionals than consumers and other audiences. The purpose of the NCDDR consumer survey was to identify the ways consumers (people with disabilities and their families) find information that is useful to them in their daily lives. These data can be compared with the modes and formats used by NIDRR researchers to determine the degree of match between formats and modes consumers prefer and what researchers typically use. WHO ARE CONSUMERS WITH DISABILITIES? It is difficult to comprehensively identify the population of Americans who have physical or mental impairments that limit one or more of life's activities. The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics (http://dsc.ucsf.edu/) proposed a figure of 36.1 million, based on the 1990 National Health Interview Survey. The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336, 104 Stat. 328) estimated some 43 million people with disabilities. The ADA definition was broadened to include those who have recovered from an impairment in the past, as well as people regarded by others as having an activity-limiting impairment (LaPlante, 1992). Using recent trends in disability rates reported by Keye, LaPlante, Carlson, and Wenger (1997), 15% of the current estimated population of 267,982,550 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1997) would yield 40.2 million persons with disabilities in the United States. This group-people with disabilities-includes individuals with diverse cultural, socioeconomic, age, and disability characteristics. One thing this heterogeneous group has in common, however, is the need for information to help them in their daily lives. In order to make NIDRR-sponsored disability research information accessible and usable, we must know more about consumers with disabilities and their information needs. There is no national database of consumers with disabilities from which to draw a sample of individuals to survey. The NCDDR elected to use the loose national network of independent living (IL) organizations to ask the opinions of consumers. Independent living centers, including Title VII funded Part C Centers for Independent Living (CIL), are community-based and consumer-run organizations. Also included with this group are the Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILC), which foster communication among CILs in each state. The consumers who participate with the CILs, SILCs, and other independent living programs that do not fall under Title VII, are generally individuals who have searched for, found, and are using services in their community. That is the population sampled by this survey activity. Although the survey is limited by the fact that many consumers who have not sought such services are not represented, that is offset by the fact that centers located throughout the country were invited to participate. Responses were received from all 50 states. The NCDDR staff focused on this group in its initial attempt to identify the information needs and preferences of consumers. If this group, for example, expressed no need for disability research information, what would that imply for individuals with disabilities? If the consumers who participate with independent living organizations do not use the Internet, or do not know how to find disability research information, what would that suggest for the larger, more varied population of people with disabilities as a whole? FIELD TEST PROCEDURES A two-part field test activity was used to develop and pilot materials and procedures used for the survey. First, a draft survey instrument was developed to identify the primary formats and modes that consumers prefer as ways to get information. NCDDR staff, a professional researcher, and the members of a focus group of people with disabilities reviewed the consumer survey draft and suggested modifications and additions. The survey instrument was translated into Spanish by NCDDR staff with assistance from staff members of the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL) Language and Diversity Program. The survey was modified to gather similar data from independent living organization administrators. Site visits were made to four CILs located in different geographical regions of the state of Texas to gather first-hand information and impressions from administrators and consumers, and to observe the survey administration process. Different cultural groups, including Anglo (White), Hispanic, and African-American cultures, were represented among staff and consumers at these CILs. Spanish-speaking consumers and staff members were asked to comment on the Spanish translation of the draft consumer survey. A total of 32 consumer responses and 5 administrator responses were received. A report of this field test is available from the NCDDR on request (Report of Field Test Results: Survey of Consumers with Disabilities, October, 1996). A second field test to pilot the mail-out and return mail procedures was conducted with eight IL centers located in four states. Seven of the volunteer field test sites returned materials and provided feedback on the materials, survey instructions, and procedures. The administrators commented on the need for such information and suggested that most independent living organizations would be eager to participate in the survey activity. A total of 37 consumers and 7 administrators responded. These data, along with the data from the initial field test, were included in the analysis of the data gathered from the survey. Survey Process PROCEDURES The NCDDR plan to gather information from consumers with disabilities focused on asking for voluntary help from independent living organizations, including: Centers for Independent Living (CILs), funded under Title VII of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended Statewide Independent Living Councils (SILCs) and Other independent living programs providing services which may assist people with disabilities in living more independently (ILPs). Telephone calls were made to administrators to explain the purpose and procedures of the survey, and to ask if they would volunteer to participate. A group of 514 independent living organizations were identified in the Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU) Directory of independent living centers and related organizations, Vol. 18, January, 1996. The final data base included 502 organizations, as some from the initial list were determined to no longer be functioning. Of these, 117 did not participate for the following reasons: some programs listed in the Directory were not independent living centers or SILCs and did not have direct contact with consumers; centers located outside the continental US, Hawaii, and Alaska were not contacted; direct contact was never made with 30 centers (in some cases messages were left but no response was received, and in other cases phone calls were never answered); many of the listings for the SILCs included a second representative, while only one was asked to participate from each state; and branch offices for some centers did not participate. A total of 380, or 99%, of the 385 administrators contacted, did volunteer to participate in the survey. Only four administrators did not agree to participate, and one did volunteer but called later to decline due to an increased work load. The independent living organizations represented among the volunteers were: 55% Title VII CILs, 13% SILCs, and 32% other ILPs. The volunteer administrators were asked to solicit survey responses from a minimum of five consumers with disabilities, or, as appropriate, to designate a representative to administer the surveys. This ensured that respondents were people who receive services or support from the groups contacted and that the anonymity of the consumers was protected. In addition, the administrators were asked to complete a similar survey from the perspective of their role. Follow-up telephone calls were made, letters were sent to encourage participation, and duplicate packets were sent to volunteers who did not receive the original mailed materials. PARTICIPANTS Materials were returned from 70% (265) of the volunteering organizations. A maximum total of 1,900 consumer responses was possible from the 380 organizations that volunteered, and a maximum of 1,325 was expected from the 265 volunteers who actually returned the survey materials. Not all volunteers returned five surveys, while a few returned more than five. A total of 1,170 consumer surveys were received, or 88% of the total projected if all responding organizations had returned five surveys. Over half of the respondents (56%, or 148) did return five consumer surveys. Fewer than five surveys were returned by 38% (100) of the respondents, while 6% (17) returned more than five surveys. Seven of the volunteers did not return any consumer surveys (2%), and only submitted administrator survey forms. An average of 4.6 consumer surveys were received per responding IL organization. Administrator surveys were not returned by 10 (3%) of the volunteering organizations. All 50 states were represented among the responding independent living organizations. Eleven states had a 100% response rate from all volunteering organizations in the state, and only four states had less than a 50% response rate. Forty-nine states were represented among those that returned five consumer surveys. More than five surveys were returned from 12 states (24%), while respondents from 40 states (80%) returned fewer than five surveys. Sixty percent of the surveys were received from A total of 15 Spanish-language consumer surveys were returned from 12 volunteer organizations in 7 states. Five groups from California, two from Texas, and one organization from each of five other states returned surveys in Spanish. MATERIALS Each administrator who volunteered to participate in the study received a packet by US Mail. Materials included an overview of the survey purpose and process; five color-coded consumer forms in both English and Spanish, with a bilingual introduction sheet attached to each form; and one color coded administrator form. If requested, alternate formats were sent, such as large print (two requests), audio tape (two requests), and computer disk (three requests). Also included with the survey materials were NCDDR notepads for respondents, and a postage-paid envelope for returning the survey forms. Preliminary Findings and Implications Initial results from the consumer survey are presented below. The responses of all (All) consumers to each question are reported. The consumer group was then divided into four regions to see if any differences were identified. These regions, based on census reporting, are Northeast (NE), South (S), Northcentral (NC), and West (W). QUESTION ONE How do you usually get information that you use? The most frequent way consumers get information is through 'Popular Media' (76%), which included television, radio, movies, and videos. 'Print Media' (73%) including books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, brochures, etc.) was also reported by consumers as a frequent information source. 'Non-print Media' (Braille, audio tapes, readers) was least frequently identified by consumers. The table below shows the percentage of consumers who reported using these information sources. Popular Media (television, radio, movies, videos) All NE S NC W 76% 72% 79% 75% 78% Print Media (books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, brochures) All NE S NC W 73% 77% 72% 71% 71% Non-Print Media (Braille, audio tapes, readers) All NE S NC W 20% 21% 20% 18% 19% Professional People (doctors, lawyers, teachers, caseworkers) All NE S NC W 62% 65% 60% 64% 58% Other People (parents, family, co-workers) All NE S NC W 68% 72% 64% 70% 67% Groups (meetings, workshops, classes, conferences) All NE S NC W 63% 67% 58% 62% 64% Computer (electronic mail, Internet) All NE S NC W 27% 29% 24% 25% 32% A few regional differences were observed. Consumers from the South reported higher use of 'Popular Media' (79%) and consumers from the Northeast had higher responses for 'Print Media' (77%) than the total group of consumers. Consumers in the West identified 'Professional People' (58%) as an information source less often than consumers in other regions. Respondents from the Northeast reported 'Other People' as an information source more often (72%) than the other groups, while those from the South identified 'Other People' less often (64%) than did consumers in other regions. This split between the Northeast and the South was also reflected in their responses to 'Groups' as an information source. Consumers in the Northeast identified 'Groups' more often (67%) than did all consumers, while those in the South reported 'Groups' less often (58%). Consumers from the Western region identified 'Computers' more often (32%) than other regions or all consumers. QUESTION TWO What ways do you like to get information? The most frequent response was 'Regular Print' (66%) and the least frequent responses were 'Braille' (5%) and 'Non-English Language' (3%). The table below shows the percentage of consumers who preferred to receive information through the various information formats. Regular Print All NE S NC W 66% 68% 67% 67% 63% Large Print All NE S NC W 25% 24% 22% 25% 27% Braille All NE S NC W 5% 4% 6% 5% 5% Audio Tape All NE S NC W 28% 26% 27% 30% 28% Video Tape All NE S NC W 36% 32% 38% 40% 32% CD-ROM All NE S NC W 13% 11% 11% 14% 14% Computer (file/disk) All NE S NC W 25% 26% 25% 23% 25% Computer (on-line) All NE S NC W 26% 25% 25% 24% 28% Non-English Language* All NE S NC W 3% * 3% 3% 2% 4% *Non-English Language: (n = 35) Italian: 1 Spanish: 15 Portuguese: 1 American Sign Language: 7 Russian: 1 German: 2 Unspecified: 8 Fewer regional differences were observed among responses to this question. Consumers from the Northeast and the West reported slightly lower preferences for 'Video Tape' (32%) while Northcentral consumers reported a higher preference for 'Video Tape' (40%) than did consumers as a whole. QUESTION THREE Do you ever get information from the Internet? The response choices for this question were 'Don't Know,' 'Never,' 'Only Once/Twice,' 'Often,' and 'Very Often.' Over 50% of the consumers indicated that they have 'Never' used the Internet to obtain information, while 4% responded 'Don't Know.' Only 25% of consumers reported using the Internet 'Often' or 'Very Often' to get information. The graph below illustrates consumer responses to Question Three. Some regional differences were noted in response to the question about use of the Internet. Fewer consumers in the West reported 'Never' using the Internet to get information (46%), while those in Northcentral region had a higher response of 'Never' (56%) than did the group of consumers as a whole. Do you ever get information from the Internet? Don't Know All NE S NC W 3% 3% 3% 4% 4% Never All NE S NC W 51% 51% 53% 56% 46% Only once/twice All NE S NC W 20% 21% 16% 20% 23% Often All NE S NC W 15% 16% 13% 13% 17% Very Often All NE S NC W 11% 10% 15% 7% 11% QUESTION FOUR Is information from disability research useful to you? The response choices were: 'Yes,' 'No,' and 'Don't Know.' Responses to Question Four showed the majority of consumers (72%) believe this type of information is useful, with 'Don't Know' (20%) as the next most frequent response selected. Only 8% of consumers responded 'No,' that information from disability research is not useful to them. Consumers from the South had a much lower response to 'Don't Know' (14%) and a higher response to 'No' (13%) than consumers from other regions. Northcentral consumers responded 'Yes,' information from disability research is important to them, more often (75%) than consumers as a whole or from any other region. Is information from disability research useful to you Don't Know All NE S NC W 20% 22% 14% 19% 22% No All NE S NC W 8% 6% 13% 6% 8% Yes All NE S NC W 72% 72% 72% 75% 70% QUESTION FIVE Do you know how to find information from disability research? The response choices were: Yes (48%), No (32%), and Don't Know (20%). Less than half of the consumers stated that they know how to find disability research information. Fewer regional differences were observed. Consumers from the Northcentral regional reported fewer 'Don't Know' responses (16%) while Western consumers responded 'Don't Know' (23%) more often than other groups or than all consumers. Do you know how to find information from disability research? Don't Know All NE S NC W 20% 20% 19% 16% 23% No All NE S NC W 32% 32% 32% 34% 30% Yes All NE S NC W 48% 48% 49% 50% 47% SUMMARY The data from the consumer survey help give a tentative picture of what consumers around the country identify as usual and preferred sources of information, as well as an indication of their current use of the Internet, and their perceptions about the importance and accessibility of disability research information. A general description of perceptions of 'the average consumer' can be drawn from this information. A comparison with the information formats and modes used by researchers to disseminate information should be made to see if there is a match with what consumers use and prefer to use. Over three-quarters of consumers identified 'Popular Media,' including television, radio, movies, and videos as a source of information. Nearly as many also identified 'Print Media.' People, including professionals and others, as well as 'Groups,' were identified as information sources by about two-thirds of consumers. 'Computers' and 'Non-Print Media' were identified as information sources by one-third or fewer of the consumers. The ways consumers prefer to get information were also varied. Only two thirds of consumers identified 'Regular Print' as a preferred format. 'Video Tape,' the second most preferred format, was identified by over one-third of consumers. 'Audio Tape,' 'Computer' (disk and on-line), and 'Large Print' were preferred by over one-quarter of the consumers who responded to the survey. Use of the Internet reflected the responses about computer use in the first two questions. About one-fourth of consumers reported using the Internet 'Often' or 'Very Often,' while the great majority of consumers used the Internet 'Never' or 'Only Once/Twice.' Regional differences show more use of the Internet by consumers in the West, and less by those in the Northcentral region. New questions emerge when responses to the two questions about information from disability research are compared. The comparative graph on the following page shows that although nearly three-quarters of consumers responded that information from disability research is useful to them, less than half report that they know how to find this information. The issue of accessibility of information for people with disabilities is undoubtedly reflected in these responses. A much larger percentage of consumers reported they do not know how to get information generated by disability research (32%), than those who felt such information was not important (8%). The number who responded 'Don't Know' was the same for both questions (20%). These data reflect a potential issue related to disability research dissemination strategies currently in practice. WHO IS THE "AVERAGE CONSUMER?" >From the information about consumers reported in this brief survey, a "typical consumer" in the NCDDR survey can be described. This typical consumer uses popular and print media as information sources, and does not use a computer as a primary information tool. The average consumer prefers regular print, followed by video tape and audio tape formats. The typical consumer has very little or no experience using the Internet, although this varies across regions. Finally, the average consumer believes that information from disability research is important, but may not know how to find this information. REFERENCES Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq. (West 1993). Edwards, L. (1991). Using knowledge and technology to improve the quality of life of people who have disabilities: A prosumer approach. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania College of Optometry. Independent Living Research Utilization (ILRU). (1996). Directory of independent living centers and related organizations, Vol. 18, January, 1996. (Available from ILRU, The Institute for Rehabilitation Research, 2323 South Shepherd Blvd., Suite 1000, Houston, TX 77019) Kaye, H.S., LaPlante, M.P., Carlson, D., & Wenger, B.L. (1997). Trends in disability rates in the United States, 1970-1994. Disability Statistics Abstract Series, #17. (Available from the Disability Statistics Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, Box 0646, San Francisco, CA 94143-0646) LaPlante, M.P. (1992). How many Americans have a disability? Disability Statistics Abstract Series, #5. (Available from the Disability Statistics Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Institute for Health & Aging, University of California, Box 0646, San Francisco, CA 94143-0646) Leung, P. (1992). Translation of knowledge into practice. In Walcott & Associates, NIDRR National CRP Panel Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Walcott & Associates. Newman, S.S., & Vash, C.L. (1994). Utilization of rehabilitation research results. Rehabilitation Education, 8(4), 380-385. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). (1995). Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research. Proposal developed in response to CFDA 84.133D, submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Austin, TX: Author. U.S. Census Bureau. (1997). Current U.S. population count. Available: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html NIDRR Grantees and Staff Receive Recognition The NCDDR congratulates each of the following NIDRR grantees or staff members. All grantees are encouraged to contact the NCDDR with information to share in future issues of The Research Exchange. Dr. Mitchell Rosenthal, Principal Investigator of the Southeastern Michigan Traumatic Brain Injury System (http://www2.sedl.org/4d.acgi$retrievegrantee?H133A20016) located at the Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Wayne State University, was recognized by the Division of Rehabilitation Psychology of the American Psychological Association (APA)(http://www.apa.org/). He received the Roger Barker Research Achievement Award for career achievement in rehabilitation research at the 105th Annual Meeting of the APA held August 15-19, 1997 in Chicago. For more information, Dr. Rosenthal may be reached at (313) 745-9769 or via e-mail: mrosenth@med.wayne.edu Dr. Harry Levitt, Principal Investigator of the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Hearing Enhancement and Assistive Devices at The Lexington Center, Inc. (http://gramercy.ios.com/~reslex/), received the Special Friends of People with Hearing Loss Award. The honor was conferred at the annual convention of the Self Help for Hard of Hearing People (http://www.shhh.org/) in June, 1996. The recognition is presented to organizations or people who have worked diligently over time to improve the life and circumstances of people with hearing loss. Dr. Levitt can be reached at (718) 899-8800, or via e-mail: lexrsch@transit.nyser.net Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden of the Trace Research and Development Center (http://trace.wisc.edu/) was recently honored with the third annual Yuri Rubinsky Memorial Web Award (http://www.webjammers.com/www6 press/press-10am.html). Dr. Vanderheiden received this award in April, 1997 at the Sixth International World Wide Web Conference (http://www6conf.slac.stanford.edu/) in Santa Clara, California, for his contributions in promoting accessibility through technology for people with disabilities. The recognition from the Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation (http://www.yuri.org/) includes a monetary award of $10,000. Dr. Vanderheiden is Principal Investigator for two current NIDRR grant activities, Understanding and Increasing the Adoption of Universal Design in Product Design (a Research and Demonstration project) and the RERC on Adaptive Computers and Information Systems (a Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center). He is also a Co-Investigator for the RERC on Universal Telecommunications Access (http://tap.gallaudet.edu/prj5.htm) based at Gallaudet University. He can be reached at the Trace Center, University of Wisconsin, at (608) 262-6966 or via e-mail: gv@trace.wisc.edu The Consumer Assistive Technology Transfer Network (CATN) (http://www.rt66.com/catn.org/) has been awarded the Non-Government (Lab) Organization Award from the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer (FLC) (http://www.zyn.com/flc/). The award was presented in July at the FLC Joint Conference of the Mid-Continent Region/Mid-Continent Technology Transfer Center Affiliates in Denver, CO. On hand to accept the award was Bill Newroe, CATN Project Manager. Mr. Newroe and the CATN can be reached at (505) 989-9408 (v), (800) 866 2253 (v/tdd) or via e-mail: catn@rt66.com How To Contact The National Center For The Dissemination Of Disability Research Call Us 1-800-266-1832 or 512-476-6861 V/TT 8 a.m.-noon and 1 p.m.-5 p.m. C.T. Mon.-Fri. (except holidays) or record a message 24 hr./day Explore Our Web Site http://www.ncddr.org/ E-mail Us jwestbro@sedl.org Write Us National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research Southwest Educational Development Laboratory 211 East Seventh Street, Suite 400 Austin, Texas 78701-3281 Visit Us In downtown Austin, Texas 4th floor, Southwest Tower, Brazos at 7th St. 8 a.m.-noon and 1 p.m.-5 p.m. C.T. Mon.-Fri. (except holidays) Fax Us 512-476-2286 The Research Exchange, a newsletter to promote the effective dissemination and utilization of disability research outcomes, is published quarterly by the National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research (NCDDR) which is operated by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). Neither SEDL nor the NCDDR discriminate on the basis of age, sex, race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital or veteran status, or the presence of a disability. SEDL is an Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and is committed to affording equal employment opportunities for all individuals in all employment matters. The contents of this newsletter were developed under a grant (#H133D50016) of $500,000 per project year from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education (ED). However, these contents do not necessarily represent the policy of SEDL, NIDRR, or the ED; do not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Copyright 1997 by the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory An electronic version of The Research Exchange, Vol. 2, No. 4 is available on the Internet at URL http://www.ncddr.org/ The Research Exchange is available in alternate formats upon request. John Westbrook, Director Lin Harris, Information Services Technician Joann Starks, Research Associate Jane Thurmond, Graphic Design ---------- End of Document .