nTAG

NCTI used the services of nTAG Interactive at this year's conference. nTAG Interactive provided individualized electronic conference badges that allowed for greater networking and the sharing of ideas during the conference. It also allowed us to better understand the community of innovators we serve. (A note about accessibility and this page.)

Check your pulse and compare — How would you answer the following questions?

We asked a variety of survey questions to take the pulse of the technology innovation field.

Reasons cited by Conference Attendees for getting involved in technology and disability field.

d

A total of 114 conference attendees who responded to this question indicated reasons for getting involved in the technology and disability field. Slightly more than half (52%) of the respondents indicated that they got involved in the field because of personal reasons: 37% because of a personal or family experience with a disability and 15% because of an encounter with a student or coworker with a disability. The remaining respondents (48%) indicated that they got involved through professional experiences: 33% because of education on or discussions about disability issues and 15% because of assignments mandated by work.

Ninety five respondents to this survey question indicated that they focus primarily on learning disabilities, a sensory impairment, or a severe disability type. Among these respondents, 71% indicated that they got involved in the field because of personal reasons, which is higher than conference attendees as a whole (52%). In particular, 57% of respondents who focused on sensory disabilities and 41% of those who focused on severe disabilities got involved in the field because of a personal or family experience with a disability. Conversely, only 23% of respondents who focused on learning disabilities indicated that they got involved in the field because of a personal or family experience with a disability. Instead, 44% of respondents who focused on learning disabilities cited having an encounter with a student or coworker with a disability as their main reason for getting involved in the field.

A total of 104 respondents to this question indicated that they focus primarily on a specific age group. Again, the majority of these respondents (72%) cited personal reasons for getting involved in the field. Having a personal or family experience with a disability was the most common reason cited by respondents who focused on postsecondary/youth (49%) and on adult/community/distance education (43%). On the other hand, having an encounter with a student or co-worker with a disability was the most common reason cited by those who focused on elementary/middle school (64%) and on early childhood (45%).

d

Factors cited by conference attendees as sustaining their intellectual involvement in technology and disability field

d

A total of 110 conference attendees indicated factors that sustained their intellectual involvement in the field. Overall findings on this topic were quite different from those about why attendees got involved in the field. That is, instead of personal reasons, professionals reasons were cited by 64% of the 110 respondents as the primary factors for sustaining their intellectual involvement in the field: 45% because of education on or discussions about disability issues and 19% because of assignments mandated by work. These findings, however, tell another story when factoring in the specific focus areas of respondents.

Of the 110 respondents who indicated what sustained their intellectual involvement in the field, 89 focused primarily on learning disabilities, a sensory impairment, or a severe disability type. Seventy-one percent of these respondents cited personal reasons, instead of professional reasons, as the primary factors for sustaining their intellectual involvement in the field. The most common factor was a personal or family experience with a disability for 43% of those who focused on sensory disabilities and 60% of those who focused on severe disabilities. Having an encounter with a student or coworker with a disability was the most common reason cited by respondents who focused on learning disabilities (46%).

Of the 110 respondents who indicated what sustained their intellectual involvement in the field, 101 focused primarily on a specific age group. Again, these respondents cited personal reasons (66%) more often than professional reasons (34%) as factors sustaining their intellectual involvement in the field. Having an encounter with a student or coworker with a disability was the personal reason cited predominately by respondents who focused primarily on three separate age groups: 45% for early childhood, 64% for elementary/middle school, and 57% for adult/community/distance education. Personal reasons were also cited by most of the respondents who focused on postsecondary/youth (63%) as the factors sustaining their intellectual involvement in the field. For this group, responses were split equally between having an encounter with a student or coworker with a disability and having a personal or family experience with a disability.

d

Extent to which conference attendees indicated that the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) mandate that products demonstrate benefits has affected his or her company or research.

d

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandates that educational products demonstrate benefits. Sixty-four conference attendees indicated whether the NCLB mandate had affected their companies or research in any way. Thirty-seven percent of respondents said that it had significantly affected their company or research, but a similar percentage of respondents (30%) said that it had not affected their company or research. Nineteen percent said that it affected them somewhat, and 14% had not heard about such a mandate. This pattern of responses continues when factoring in the focus areas of respondents, but some interesting exceptions do occur.

For example, all of the respondents who focused primarily on learning disabilities had heard about the NCLB mandates, and nearly half (48%) indicated that the mandates had affected them significantly. On the other hand, 18% of those who focused primarily on sensory disabilities and 21% of those who focused primarily on severe disabilities indicated that they had not heard about the mandates.

With respect to respondents who focused primarily on a specific age group, 60% of those who focused primarily on the elementary/middle school age group indicated that the NCLB mandates affected them significantly. Additionally, 29% of respondents who focused primarily on the adult/community/distance education age group had not heard about the mandates.

d

Extent to which conference attendees feel that the needs of users/students and teachers are known by the field of Assistive Technology (AT)

d

Seventy-two conference attendees indicated the extent to which they felt that the needs of users/students and teachers are known by the assistive technology (AT) field. Only 6% of respondents indicated that the needs of users/students and teachers are very well-known by the AT field. Sixty-one percent indicated that the needs are somewhat well-known by the field; 25%, only slightly known; and 8%, not known.

Interestingly, respondents who focused primarily on sensory disabilities (50% - see bar graph) or severe disabilities (42%) were more likely than conference attendees as a whole (33%) to report that the needs of users/students and teachers are either not known or slightly known by the AT field. By contrast, the majority (79%) of respondents who focused primarily on learning disabilities reported that the needs of users/students and teachers are either very well-known or somewhat well-known by the field.

Not one respondent from three groups (i.e., those who focused primarily on the early childhood, elementary/middle school, or adult/community/distance education age groups) indicated that needs of users/students and teachers are very well-known by the AT field. However, respondents who focused primarily on the postsecondary/youth age group (12%) were more likely than conference attendees as a whole (5%) to report that the needs are very well-known by the AT field.

d

Ratings by conference attendees on the frequency of their interaction with new people in the Assistive Technology Field

d

Ninety-four conference attendees indicated the frequency with which they interact with new people in the AT field. Respondents reported a relatively high degree of interaction: 33% reported “frequent” interaction and 41% reported “occasional” interaction. One quarter of the respondents rated their interactions with new people in the AT field as “never” or “rare.”

Interacting with new people “frequently” appears to be slightly more common among respondents who focused primarily on sensory disabilities (40%) or severe disabilities (42%) than those who focus primarily on learning disabilities (24%). All of the respondents who focused primarily on sensory disabilities reported at least some degree of interaction with new people in the AT field.

Eighty-one percent of respondents who focused primarily on the elementary/middle school age group and 94% of those who focused on the adult/community/distance education age group reported that their interactions with new people in the AT field were “frequent” or “occasional.” Forty percent of respondents who focused primarily on the early childhood age group indicated that they “never” interact with new people in the field. This is the highest percentage reported for “never” among the groups of respondents.

d

Beliefs by conference attendees of how large, mainstream tech companies perceive traditional Assistive Technology.

d

Ninety-four conference attendees reported their beliefs on the perceptions that large, mainstream technology companies have about traditional AT. More than half of the respondents (53%) believed that such companies perceive traditional AT as being “an intriguing niche market.” But only 6% of respondents believed that the companies perceive traditional AT as being “integral to their full solution.” Eighteen percent of respondents thought that such companies perceive traditional AT as being “unnecessary for their consumers,” and 23% of respondents thought that the companies perceive traditional AT as being “a nuisance.”

Respondents who focused primarily on sensory disabilities were much more likely (61%) than other respondents to think that large, mainstream technology companies perceive traditional AT as being “a nuisance.” Additionally, not one respondent who focused primarily on sensory disabilities believed that companies perceive traditional AT as being “integral to their full solution.” Respondents who focused on learning disabilities (65%) and those who focused on severe disabilities (60%), more so than those who focused on sensory disabilities (22%), thought that large, mainstream technology companies perceive traditional AT as being “an intriguing niche market.”

Respondents who focused on the early childhood and adult/community/distance education age groups held the most positive attitudes about the perceptions that large, mainstream technology companies have toward traditional AT. Approximately 70% of respondents from each of these groups thought that such companies perceive traditional AT as being “an intriguing niche market.” Respondents who focused primarily on the elementary/middle school or postsecondary/youth age groups were more skeptical. Approximately 50% of respondents from each of these groups believed that large, mainstream companies view traditional AT as being either “a nuisance” or “unnecessary for their consumers.”

d