Accessibility and usability in housing: construct validity and implications for research and practice

Purpose: The aim of this study was to validate the conceptual definitions of accessibility and usability, and to explore differences between objective accessibility assessments and subjective ratings of usability in different client groups. Method: The Housing Enabler and the Usability in My Home in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Disability and rehabilitation 2003-12, Vol.25 (23), p.1316-1325
Main Authors: Fänge, Agneta, Iwarsson, Susanne
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Activities of Daily Living
Adult
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
Architectural Accessibility
Disabled Persons
Female
Housing
Humans
Male
Medical and Health Sciences
Medicin och hälsovetenskap
Middle Aged
Other Medical Sciences
Other Medical Sciences not elsewhere specified
Residence Characteristics
Sex Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
Sweden
Övrig annan medicin och hälsovetenskap
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: The aim of this study was to validate the conceptual definitions of accessibility and usability, and to explore differences between objective accessibility assessments and subjective ratings of usability in different client groups. Method: The Housing Enabler and the Usability in My Home instruments were used for 131 persons above 18 years of age, living in ordinary housing and receiving a housing adaptation grant. Covariation between accessibility in four different housing sections and three different usability aspects were explored, for the total sample and for six sub-samples reflecting person-environment-activity transactions or demographic factors. Results: Significant correlations were found in the total sample, among clients aged 75 - 84, women, clients living alone, as well as among clients with high dependence in personal and instrumental ADL and in outdoor activities. Subjective usability evaluations of activity aspects and physical environmental aspects were correlated to accessibility indoors and outdoors, while personal and social aspects of usability were correlated to outdoor accessibility. Conclusions: Accessibility and usability are concluded to be different but related concepts. The results indicate that e.g. age, civil status and ADL dependence affect how clients assess aspects of their housing situation. For efficient planning and evaluation of housing adaptations, assessment of housing accessibility, usability, and dependence in ADL is recommended.
ISSN:0963-8288
1464-5165
DOI:10.1080/09638280310001616286