Human resource for people with disabilities: scale design, development and validation

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4332950/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Human resource for people with disabilities: scale design, development and validation

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4332950/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

The concept of viewing people with disabilities (PWDs) as a valuable human resource has developed alongside the evolution of the disability paradigm and the modern economy. Nevertheless, the full potential of PWDs as a human resource has yet to be realized. The proper development and utilization of PWDs can lead to significant economic and social benefits. This study aims to develop and validate the Human Resources Scale for People with Disabilities (HRSPWD) in the context of Chinese respondents (n=1235). Exploratory factor analysis (n=600) and confirmatory factor analysis (n=635) were conducted, and the results revealed that the structure of the HRSPWD-18 features three dimensions: selection and training, appraisal and promotion, and compensation and support. The scale has been shown to exhibit good validity and reliability, thus making it a valuable tool for assessing the management of human resources among this population.

PWDs

human resources for PWDs

human resources scale

employment

1.1 People with disabilities are a significant “human resource” that must be cultivated

The concept of viewing people with disabilities (PWDs) as a type of “human resource” has developed alongside the deepening of our understanding of “disability”. The traditional medical model of disability views PWDs as “patients” who have lost mobility due to physiological impairments. In societies in which the medical model is dominant, PWDs are regarded by mainstream society as burdens and liabilities to social development rather than as assets (Hogan, 2019; Gibson, 2020). The medical model, which focuses on scientific rigor, objectivity, and ease of understanding by the public, is characterized by considerable explanatory power. However, the medical model's pathologizing interpretation of disability has received significant criticism in contemporary society, which has led research to reflect on whether "disability" is indeed a medical condition (Dokumacı, 2019; Monforte et al., 2020). In the 1980s, disability theorists such as Oliver articulated the social model of disability, which posits that disability is entirely imposed upon individuals by society. The corresponding barriers include personal discrimination, institutional biases, physical constraints in environments, and interpersonal exclusions. According to this model, the causes of disability do not originate from the PWDs themselves but rather from societal structures that are characterized by prejudice and unfriendliness toward such people (Oliver, 2012; Goering, 2015; McCraney, 2023). According to the social model of disability, disability should not be viewed as a “disease”; rather, PWDs should be viewed as an important human resource in the same manner as able-bodied individuals (Lunsford, et al., 2019; Sang, et al., 2023). In 2001, the World Health Organization (WHO) released The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). ICF views individual health as consisting of two major aspects: the central components, which include body functions/structures, activities, and participation, and contextual factors, which include personal and environmental factors. The ICF framework utilizes “disability” as a unified term to describe various states pertaining to the domains of body, person, and society. This framework has been regarded as an attempt to transcend the medical model and as a synthesis of both the medical and social models (Kostanjsek, 2011). According to the ICF framework, PWDs are viewed as a latent human resource that has not yet been fully developed or utilized (Negri et al., 2023). Providing the necessary human resource development to PWDs is expected to have significant economic and social benefits (Groshl, 2004; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2008).

The perspective that PWDs constitute important human resources continues to receive support. Hitherto, research on PWDs as human resources has focused on the feasibility and necessity of their development, functionality, dimensions of development, existing challenges, and strategies for resolution. First, providing human resource development to PWDs is both feasible and necessary. PWDs often possess unique advantages over able-bodied individuals. For example, individuals with hearing impairments can excel in noisy work environments, while individuals with visual impairments frequently excel in massage therapy due to their heightened sensitivity, which enables them to detect joints and pressure points. These comparative advantages highlight the significance of PWDs as important human resources (Huang et al., 2011; Miethlich et al., 2019). Developing the human resources of PWDs is an essential way of guaranteeing their fundamental rights to employment and social integration. Therefore, from a human rights perspective, the development of human resources for PWDs is a necessary social responsibility (Markel, 2009; Kuznetsova, 2012). Second, researchers’ discussions concerning the functionality of human resource development in the context of PWDs have exhibited two tendencies. One such tendency focuses on viewing the development of human resources for PWDs as being conducive to utilitarian purposes, such as economic development and social stability (Collins, 2007; Buys et al. 2015). The other tendency focuses on a humanitarian perspective, which aims to eliminate societal biases and discrimination against PWDs and to guarantee their rights and dignity (Markel, 2009; Yunpeng, 2011). Third, no unified consensus has emerged within academia regarding the various dimensions associated with the development of human resources for PWDs. However, these discussion have generally focused on improving upon the dimensions of human resource development. Overall, the development of human resources for PWDs encompasses a variety of aspects, including recruitment and selection, training, career advancement, performance evaluation, and accessibility construction (Gida, 2007; Kingori, 2020). Fourth, the management of human resources for PWDs often emphasizes postemployment treatment to a disproportionate degree while overlooking skill training (Gewurtz, 2016). Additionally, it fails to address issues such as the limited opportunities for interpersonal interaction, career advancement, and involvement in company decision-making processes that are available to PWDs (Schur, 2009). In response to these issues, scholars have proposed that education and skill training for PWDs should be prioritized, in which context they have particularly emphasized the development and management of human resources for PWDs (Beatty, 2019). PWDs are vital human resources; however, the development of these human resources is not yet sufficient. The development of a scale to measure the human resources of PWDs would be of significant theoretical and practical value (Pérez-Conesa, et al., 2020). This scale could facilitate the process of developing the human resources available with the disabled population, thus enabling their social value to be realized more effectively. This key issue is the focus of the following section.

1.2 The Human Resources Scale for People with Disabilities (HRSPWD) is an important yet currently lacking tool

The development of human resource management scales is important in the field of organizational psychology. These scales are designed to assess and measure various behaviors, attitudes, and skills on the part of employees in the workplace, thereby providing organizations with tools that they can use to gain deeper insights into the relationships between employees and the organization. Macduffie (1995) designed one of the earliest human resource scales by combining various dimensions of human resource management policies, such as recruitment standards, compensation systems, status barriers, and training levels. By conducting regression analysis and factor analysis, he validated the systemic effects of interrelated human resources. Subsequently, human resource management scales continuously evolved to expand their coverage in terms of new dimensions and content. One classic scale that has received widespread recognition in academia is the Human Resource Management Practice Questions (Wright et al., 2005), which includes nine specific human resource practices pertaining to major areas such as recruitment and selection, training and promotion, performance appraisal, and compensation and benefits. Due to rapid economic development and industrial restructuring, the development of human resources has taken three new forms. The first such form focuses on happiness-oriented human resource scales, which focus primarily on dimensions such as growth and development, cocreation and sharing, humanistic care, and democratic consultation. Research has shown that this approach to human resource management can take advantage of employees' sense of ownership more effectively (Guest, 2017; Salas-Vallina et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023). The second form focuses on high-performance-oriented human resource scales, which aim to address rapidly changing user demands and industrial upgrades; these scales view the continuous stimulation of employee initiative and the fulfillment of diverse customer needs as key factors in attempts to obtain competitive advantages. They advocate a shift from traditional employment relationships with employees into “mutually beneficial alliances” with the goal of enhancing work performance (Wu et al., 2018; Wang, 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). The third form focuses on environmentally friendly human resource scales, which measure the degree of greening in enterprise operations processes in terms of various aspects, such as training, teamwork, environmental goal assessment, nonfinancial rewards, and organizational culture. These scales aim to prevent environmental pollution, promote environmental management policies, and ensure sustainable development (Tang et al., 2018; Molina-Azorin et al., 2021).

The results of a search for keywords related to human resource management scales for PWDs on the Web of Science database are somewhat disappointing. Namely, no well-established human resource scales for PWDs have yet been developed. Due to physical or intellectual impairments among PWDs, most studies on this topic have focused on how to provide better services to them, thereby enabling them to live better. Research on scales pertaining to the disabled population has featured three main directions. First, the Support Intensity Scale (SIS) was developed for PWDs. In this context, Chou et al. (2013) collected data from 139 intellectually disabled individuals in Taiwan, developed an SIS featuring six dimensions, and validated the reliability and validity of this scale. Second, an employment capability assessment scales was developed for PWDs; this scale focused on these employees’ employment motivation and willingness (Romeo & Yepes-Baldó, 2019) and sought to measure their readiness to participate in the job market (Shaw & Gold, 2011). Third, an employment environment scale for PWDs has been developed; this scale focused on whether the current social and governmental employment environment is beneficial for PWDs (Scroggins, 2007; Alam & Shin, 2023).

1.3 Research gap

The claim that PWDs are vital human resources has been increasingly acknowledged. A human resource scale for PWDs should be designed specifically for the disabled population; such a scale can serve as a crucial tool that can help these individuals obtain human resource development and employment more effectively. However, the academic community has hitherto failed to pay attention to human resource scales for PWDs, and no specialized scales designed for PWDs have yet been developed. The fact that researchers have focused more on disability employment than on disability human resource development must be acknowledged since this stream of research has tended to “put the cart before the horse”; namely, without fully developing disability human resources, it is difficult to ensure high-quality employment for PWDs. According to data provided by the China Disabled Persons’ Federation (2021), the total number of disabled persons in China is more than 85 million, resulting in a rate of one disabled person for every 16 Chinese citizens (China has not updated its official statistics concerning disabled persons since 2010). How can we fully develop the human resources of individuals with disabilities in light of their uniqueness? Perhaps a scale that objectively conceptualizes disability human resources in the form of various indicators and can be used for measurement in this context could help solve this problem. This paper attempts to develop a human resource scale for PWDs in mainland China, thus addressing the gap in the current research and promoting the full development of disability human resources in practice.

2.1 Scale development

To determine the original item content for the scale, two focus groups were conducted offline; each group featured eight participants, for a total of 16 participants. Group members were recruited through WeChat group chats and emails, and all participants were PWDs who were currently employed. Their disability types included physical disability and developmental disability, and their disability levels ranged from 2 to 4. Detailed personal information is shown in Table 1. Based on a review of the literature on human resources, this study developed six research questions that focused on four main dimensions: recruitment and selection, training and promotion, performance appraisal, and salary and benefits. The research questions are as follows: 1) What difficulties have you encountered in your employment or work as a PWD? 2) What do you believe is the most important factor for PWDs with regard to recruitment and selection? 3) Should PWDs receive the same salaries and benefits as able-bodied individuals? 4) Should the performance appraisal methods used for PWDs be the same as those used for able-bodied individuals? 5) Are PWDs capable of holding leadership positions in enterprises? 6) What do you believe is the most important aspect of human resource development for PWDs?

Table 1

Focus Group Member Information Sheet
No.	Gender	Age	Disability type	Disability level	Occupation
1	Female	34	Visual impairment	Grade 4	Chiropractor
2	Female	22	Visual impairment	Grade 3	Chiropractor
3	Male	55	Hearing impairment	Grade 4	Journalist
4	Female	32	Physical disability	Grade 4	Teacher
5	Male	27	Hearing impairment	Grade 4	Public servant
6	Female	25	Speech impairment	Grade 3	Delivery person
7	Male	60	Speech impairment	Grade 3	Architect
8	Female	43	Intellectual disability	Grade 4	Cleaner
9	Female	48	Hearing impairment	Grade 4	Public servant
10	Male	51	Hearing impairment	Grade 3	Chef
11	Male	22	Hearing impairment	Grade 4	Doctor
12	Male	37	Visual impairment	Grade 3	Chiropractor
13	Female	34	Physical disability	Grade 4	Painter
14	Male	56	Speech impairment	Grade 3	Writer
15	Male	27	Visual impairment	Grade 2	Chiropractor
16	Female	33	Physical disability	Grade 4	Teacher

[Insert Table 1 about here]

The study transcribed and analyzed the audio recordings of these two focus group discussions and the interview texts after receiving informed consent from the participants. Content analysis involves analyzing the content of focus group interviews with the goal of summarizing their connotations, logic, and meaning. This goal can be achieved through three methods: pragmatic content analysis, semantic content analysis, and semiotic-instrumental content analysis (Zhang, 2014). In this study, semantic and pragmatic content analysis was used to describe the perceptions, experiences, and expectations of PWDs regarding recruitment and selection, training and promotion, performance evaluation, and compensation.

With respect to participant-reported content, open coding of the textual data was conducted for this study. This process involved breaking up and reorganizing the collected primary data to generate initial concepts and categories using abstraction, comparison, conceptual summarization, and category condensation (Corbin & Strauss, 2014). Second, this primary coding was supplemented with spindle coding to establish connections among conceptual categories and distinguish among different category levels following the approach described by Strauss and Corbin (1990). The categories were then mapped onto the four core dimensions of human resources for PWDs. Notably, the subcoding process revealed a tendency for participants to discuss the two dimensions of recruitment and training simultaneously. This finding is related to the context of China's PWDs, which are dominated by centralized and proportional decentralized employment and feature a relatively closed loop in terms of employment channels. PWDs may receive welfare training for empowerment before entering the workforce; this training is followed by a selection sequence, which may in turn be followed by a new phase of skills training. The training is designed to equip PWDs with the skills they need to enter the job market, and the selection process is followed by further training; these two phases are mutually reinforcing. These findings are consistent with those reported in previous studies on human resource development and employment training for PWDs in China (Zhang, 2013; Zhou & Rong, 2015). This study combined recruitment and selection and training and promotion into a single dimension, resulting in a unit of meaning that is related to the three core factors. Finally, as part of this study, 20 possible items were identified based on the open coding and master conceptualization. These items pertain to themes related to the experiences, feelings, and expectations of employees with disabilities. Each item was scored on a five-point Likert scale, with higher scale scores indicating higher levels of human resources with regard to the participants. The three stages were coded as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Focus Group Member Information Sheet
Main Concept	Open Codes	Initial Project
Selection and Training	Favoritism in hiring	I observed clear favoritism in the hiring of employees with disabilities.
	Merit-based hiring for employees with disabilities	Employees with disabilities are selected by my organization based on their abilities.
	Whether the employee with a disability is qualified for his or her position	My organization can provide suitable jobs for employees with disabilities.
	Fairness in the hiring process	My organization's process for hiring employees with disabilities is transparent and open.
	Pre- and postemployment training for employees with disabilities	My organization regularly provides training to employees with disabilities.
	Whether the training provided to disabled employees is for the benefit of the organization	I contend that the training provided by my organization to employees with disabilities is intended to enhance efficiency.
Appraisal and Promotion	Whether the criteria used for evaluating the work of the employee with disabilities are the same as those used for other employees	The organization assesses my work based on my competence and job output.
	Whether the criteria used for rewarding and promoting employees with disabilities are the same as those used for other employees	My organization's appraisal system is applicable to job promotions and rewards for employees with disabilities.
	Whether the job evaluations of disabled employees are fair	I believe that my organization's evaluation of employees with disabilities is fair and objective.
	Whether the criteria used for the promotion of disabled employees meet employees’ needs	The training of disabled employees provided by the organization is based on consideration of their needs.
	Whether employees with disabilities who exhibit outstanding performance are prioritized for promotion	Priority for promotion is given to disabled employees who exhibit outstanding performance in the organization.
	Role played by the organization in career planning for employees with disabilities	My organization provides assistance to employees with disabilities with regard to setting career goals.
	Clarity of career planning for employees with disabilities	I am cognizant of the trajectory of my professional development within this organization and my potential for advancement.
	Better development opportunities for outstanding employees with disabilities	Employees with disabilities who perform well in my organization are given better opportunities for development.
Compensation and Support	Satisfaction with compensation and benefits	I am gratified by the remuneration package offered by the organization to employees with disabilities.
	Incentive level with regard to compensation and benefits	The remuneration and appraisal system employed by my organization serves to motivate employees with disabilities to work to achieve the organization's goals.
	Accessibility of the organization	My organization is committed to ensuring that employees with disabilities have equal access to all aspects of the workplace.
	Degree of concern for the mental health of disabled employees	My organization offers regular psychological counseling services to employees with disabilities.
	Government's policy support for disabled employees	My work is supported by government policies.
	Organization's policy support for disabled employees	My work is supported by the organization's policies.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

For this study, three staff members were recruited from the Federation of Persons with Disabilities, an organization in China that acts as a bridge between the government and civil society for PWDs. Additionally, three business leaders were recruited to serve as experts in an evaluation of the 20 items. These experts were asked to rate each item on a 5-point scale in terms of its relevance, importance, and appropriateness to the dimension with which it was associated. Higher scores indicated higher levels of relevance, importance, and appropriateness. The lowest-scoring item, i.e., “My organization's process for hiring employees with disabilities is transparent and open”, was removed. Namely, this item was not in line with the actual situation of some enterprises in China that implement centralized employment. Centralized employment is often a government-driven initiative aimed at employing PWDs. The ability of PWDs to obtain employment depends on assessments of their disability level and employability. Thus, this situation does not involve an open or transparent recruitment or selection process. The phrase “I haven’t observed clear favoritism in the hiring of employees with disabilities” already indicated that the recruitment and selection process is fair, thus making the previous statement redundant.

After conducting a pretest, 10 PWDs provided feedback concerning the questionnaire. Two participants felt that the item “The organization assesses my work based on my competence and job output” was insufficiently clear. Therefore, based on their feedback, this item was modified to read as follows: “The job evaluations of employees with disabilities conducted by my organization are based on these employees’ abilities and job performance”. During the first phase, a 19-item Human Resources Scale for People with Disabilities (HRSPWD-19) was developed based on focus groups, expert assessment, and a pretest.

2.2 Scale validation

2.2.1 Procedures

From 6 September 2023 to 30 October 2023, the research team implemented a process of online questionnaire distribution and data management via the Questionnaire Star platform. To address the employment of PWDs across various disability levels and occupational categories, the research team consulted with the relevant staff members associated with the Shandong Disabled People's Federation. The federation communicated with leaders of disabled people's organizations in various locations, who then shared the questionnaire link with the relevant groups. All participants voluntarily completed the questionnaire online, and it required approximately 15 minutes to complete. The questionnaire included a guideline at the top of each question to help participants complete it accurately. The questionnaire header contained the ethical code of conduct for the study, which informed participants that their personal information would be anonymized and that the data would be used solely for academic purposes.

2.2.2 Participants

A total of 1,511 PWD completed the survey, and their demographic information is presented in Table 3. The sample exhibited a balanced gender ratio, with 48.18% of respondents being male and 51.82% being female. The highest percentage of respondents fell within the 41–60 age range. The survey included participants with 6 different types of disabilities, nearly half of whom had a physical disability. China’s current Classification and Grading of Disabilities of Persons with Disabilities (National Technical Committee for Standardization of Rehabilitation and Specialized Equipment for Persons with Disabilities, 2010) divides all types of disabilities into four grades according to the degree of the disability; in this study, relatively high percentages of participants had Grade 2 or Grade 4 disabilities. Approximately half of the participants with disabilities had a junior high school level of education or below. The majority of participants (65.92%) were unemployed. Respondents who were employed were more likely to have freelance or worker-type occupations. Additionally, 57.11% of PWDs had a monthly income of less than 2,000 yuan (equivalent to US$281), which is lower than the minimum wage standard in most regions in China.

Table 3

Participants’ Descriptive Statistics
Variables	n	%
Gender
Male	728	48.18
Female	781	51.82
Age
<=18	27	1.79
19–30	140	9.30
31–40	298	19.79
41–50	363	24.10
51–60	352	23.37
> 60	326	21.65
Disability Type
Visual disability	219	12.87
Hearing disability	277	16.28
Speech disability	112	6.58
Physical disability	772	45.39
Intellectual disability	137	8.05
Mental disability	184	10.82
Degree of Disability
First degree	229	15.16
Second degree	472	31.24
Third degree	352	23.30
Fourth degree	458	30.31
Education
< high school	723	47.85
Polytechnic school or high school	390	25.81
Mechanical degree or bachelor degree	387	25.62
> bachelor’s degree	11	8.73
Type of Employment
Freelance	99	6.55
Laborer	90	5.96
Service industry	48	3.18
Professionals	33	2.18
Administrative	61	4.04
Retired	184	12.18
Unemployed	996	65.92
Monthly Income
< 2K	863	57.11
2K-3.5K	390	25.81
3.5K-5K	199	13.17
> 5K	59	3.90

[Insert Table 3 here]

2.2.3 Measures

The questionnaire comprised two parts. The first part collected demographic background information, including participants’ gender, age, type and level of disability, level of education, occupation type, and income. The second part contained the HRSPWD developed by the research team.

2.2.4 Data analysis

Before conducting the data analysis, data cleaning was performed, and no variables featured missing values. With the assistance of IBM SPSS 29.0 software, 276 outliers that provided the same response to all 19 items were removed, resulting in a final sample of 1235. Subsequently, validity and reliability tests of the HRSPWD were conducted.

To verify the structural validity of the scale, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using IBM SPSS 29.0. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the scale was then performed by using a structural equation model (SEM) with the assistance of Amos 26.0 software to assess the degree of model fit.

The correlation analysis indicated no strong correlations (r < 0.8) among the items included in the scale. To validate the internal consistency of the scale, the Cronbach’s α coefficients for the total scale and the subscales were calculated using IBM SPSS 29.0.

Subsequently, the subscales of the scale were described. The mean differences between participants' perceptions of these variables and the hypothesized midpoint scores (critical value = 3) were assessed using independent samples t tests.

The sample (n = 1235) was randomly divided into two sets; the first sample set (n = 600) was used for exploratory factor analysis, while the second sample set (n = 635) was used for validation factor analysis with the goal of testing the structural validity, model fit, and reliability of the scales.

3.1 Exploratory factor analysis

An EFA was first conducted to investigate a set of 600 samples with the goal of identifying the intrinsic dimensions of the HRSPWD-19. Factor analysis was appropriate when the Kaiser‒Meyer‒Olkin (KMO) value was greater than 0.60 and the results of Bartlett's sphericity test were statistically significant (Kaiser, 1974). The analyses indicated that KMO = 0.97 and the results of Bartlett’s sphericity test < 0.001, thus indicating that the scale was suitable for EFA. The component matrix was rotated using Kaiser's normalized maximum variance method, which converged after 12 iterations, and three components were extracted as factors. The first factor was selection and training (items 2, 3, 4, and 5), which describes the perceptions and attitudes of PWDs regarding the criteria, frequency, and effectiveness of recruitment and selection within the organization as well as staff training. A sample item is “Employees with disabilities are selected by my organization based on their abilities”. The second factor, appraisal and promotion (items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13), describes the perceptions and attitudes of PWDs regarding the criteria and extent of application of appraisals for promotion within the organization. A sample item is “I am cognizant of the trajectory of my professional development within this organization and my potential for advancement”. The third factor, compensation and support (items 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19), describes the pay package for PWDs and the policy support that the unit receives. A sample item is “The remuneration and appraisal system employed by my organization serves to motivate employees with disabilities to work to achieve the organization's goals”. Item 1 (“I observed clear favoritism in hiring”) did not correspond to any of the three extracted factors; thus, this item was deleted.

The factor loading after rotation using the maximum variance method is shown in Table 4, in which context the four items associated with the selection and training factor exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.65 and 0.76, the eight items associated with the evaluation and promotion factor exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.58 and 0.74, and the six items associated with the compensation and support factor exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.61 and 0.80. The loading coefficients exhibited by all the items with the correlated factors were greater than 0.55 and associated with the same direction of influence, thus indicating strong positive correlations between the three factors included in the scale and the corresponding observed variables.

Table 4

Factor-Loading Values and Descriptions of HRSPD
Item	Load Factor
Factor 1: Selection and Training
2. Employees with disabilities are selected by my organization based on their abilities.	0.70
3. My organization can provide suitable jobs to employees with disabilities.	0.76
4. My organization regularly provides training to employees with disabilities.	0.65
5. I contend that the training provided by my organization to employees with disabilities is intended to enhance efficiency.	0.66
Factor 2: Appraisal and Promotion
6. The training of disabled employees provide by the organization is based on consideration of their needs.	0.56
7. Priority for promotion is given to disabled employees with outstanding performance in the organization.	0.73
8. The job evaluations of employees with disabilities conducted by my organization are based on these employees’ abilities and job performance.	0.70
9. My organization's appraisal system is applicable to job promotions and rewards for employees with disabilities.	0.74
10. I believe that my organization's evaluation of employees with disabilities is fair and objective.	0.71
11. My organization provides assistance to employees with disabilities with regard to setting career goals.	0.72
12. I am cognizant of the trajectory of my professional development within this organization and my potential for advancement.	0.74
13. Employees with disabilities who perform well in my organization are given better opportunities for development.	0.72
Factor 3: Compensation and Support
14. I am gratified by the remuneration package offered by the organization to employees with disabilities.	0.66
15. The remuneration and appraisal system employed by my organization serves to motivate employees with disabilities to work to achieve the organization's goals.	0.61
16. My organization is committed to ensuring that employees with disabilities have equal access to all aspects of the workplace.	0.67
17. My organization offers regular psychological counseling services to employees with disabilities.	0.76
18. My work is supported by government policies.	0.80
19. My work is supported by the organization's policies.	0.80

[Insert Table 4 about here]

3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

3.2.1 First-order model analysis

The subsequent study focused on a database of 635 samples; in this context, a CFA was conducted to determine the degree of model fit pertaining to the HRSPWD-18. The Cronbach’s α coefficient for the scale was 0.98, the Cronbach’s α coefficient for subscale 1 (selection and training) was 0.91, the Cronbach’s α coefficient for subscale 2 (appraisal and promotion) was 0.98, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient for subscale 3 (compensation and support) was 0.96. Both the total scale and the subscales exhibited good internal consistency, and the measurement instruments were relatively stable and highly reliable.

The results of the first-order model are presented in Fig. 1. The four items associated with the selection and training factor exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.85 and 0.94; the eight items associated with the appraisal and promotion exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.89 and 0.95; and the six items associated with the compensation and support exhibited loading coefficients ranging between 0.88 and 0.96. The loading coefficients of all variables with regard to their correlates were greater than 0.85 and featured the same direction of influence, thus indicating strong positive correlations between the three factors included in this scale and the corresponding observed variables and revealing that the aggregation validity associated with the scale was high. The correlation coefficients among the three factors exhibited high values, ranging from 0.93 to 0.97. These findings may suggest the presence of a common factor that influences the observed relationships.

The fit of the model was subsequently measured, revealing a CMIN/DF of 4.29, a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) of 0.06, a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.99, an adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) of 0.92, an incremental fit index (IFI) of 0.99, and a Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) of 0.98, all of which met the relevant psychometric criteria, thus proving that the scales fit well and exhibited good reliability and validity.

[Insert Fig. 1 about here]

3.2.2 Second-order model analysis

The results of the first-order model analysis were used to construct a second-order model of HRSPD, which assumed the existence of a second-order latent variable (HRSPD) to control for the correlations among the variables. The model results are shown in Fig. 3. All of the fit indices for the model met the relevant criteria, with a CMIN/DF of 4.13, an RMSEA of 0.06, and a CFI of 0.9. Additionally, the AGFI was 0.92, the IFI was 0.99, and the TLI was 0.98. The second-order model exhibited the same degree of excellent fit as the first-order model, and the corresponding index CMIN/DF was better than that of the first-order model. These findings indicate that the second-order model is reasonable and can effectively explain the structure of the first-order model and represent the relationships among the variables. This conclusion is consistent with that of Tang et al. (2017).

Significant correlations featuring high correlation values were observed between the second-order latent variables and the three dimensions, in which context the path coefficients exceeded 0.97. The highest path coefficient was observed in the context of appraisal and promotion (r = 0.99), followed by compensation and support (r = 0.98), while the lowest path coefficient was observed in the context of selection and training (r = 0.95). The final results of the model warrant further reflection and are consistent with the findings of previous research on human resources for PWDs. This research indicates that human resource management plays an important role in influencing the realization of self-worth among PWDs, including in the contexts of employment (Zhang, 2013; Zhou& Rong, 2015), job performance (Gida, 2007; Kingori, 2020) and promotion (Macduffie, 1995; Wright et al., 2005).

3.3 Human Resources Scale for People with Disabilities (HRSPWD-18)

The final version of the HRSPWD-18 was identified and validated based on the results of the EFA and CFA; this version represented a self-reported 18-item scale that focused on the employability pool of PWDs in relation to their human resource management status and was scored on a five-point Likert scale (1 = very unsuitable, 2 = unsuitable, 3 = unclear, 4 = suitable, and 5 = very suitable). The three dimensions included in the scale and the corresponding items are shown in Table 5.

Table 5

Structure and Content of the HRSPWD-18
Factor	Item
Factor 1: Selection and Training	1. Employees with disabilities are selected by my organization based on their abilities.
	2. My organization can provide suitable jobs to employees with disabilities.
	3. My organization regularly provides training to employees with disabilities.
	4. I contend that the training provided by my organization to employees with disabilities is intended to enhance efficiency.
Factor 2: Appraisal and Promotion	5. The training of disabled employees provided by the organization is based on consideration of their needs.
	6. Priority for promotion is given to disabled employees with outstanding performance in the organization.
	7. The job evaluations of employees with disabilities conducted by my organization are based on these employees’ abilities and job performance.
	8. My organization's appraisal system is applicable to job promotions and rewards for employees with disabilities.
	9. I believe that my organization's evaluation of employees with disabilities is fair and objective.
	10. My organization provides assistance to employees with disabilities with regard to setting career goals.
	11. I am cognizant of the trajectory of my professional development within this organization and my potential for advancement.
	12. Employees with disabilities who perform well in my organization are given better opportunities for development.
Factor 3: Compensation and Support	13. I am gratified by the remuneration package offered by the organization to employees with disabilities.
	14. The remuneration and appraisal system employed by my organization serves to motivate employees with disabilities to work to achieve the organization's goals.
	15. My organization is committed to ensuring that employees with disabilities have equal access to all aspects of the workplace.
	16. My organization offers regular psychological counseling services to employees with disabilities.
	17. My work is in accordance with government policies.
	18. My work is in accordance with the organization's policies.

[Insert Table 5 about here]

Furthermore, this study examined the current state of human resources for PWDs in China. As illustrated in Table 6, the mean values of the three dimensions of selection and training, assessment and promotion, and compensation and support among individuals with disabilities were below average (3 points). The highest mean value was observed with regard to the pay and support dimension (M = 2.54, SD = 1.05, t(1235)=-15.39, p < 0.001), followed by the appraisal and promotion dimension (M = 2.52, SD = 1.03, t(1235)=-16.32, p < 0.001), while the selection and training dimension was associated with the lowest mean value (M = 2.46, SD = 1.01, t(1235)=-18.75, p < 0.001).

Table 6

A Descriptive Analysis of Human Resources for People with Disabilities
	N	M	Sd	Df	T	P
ST	1235	2.46	1.01	1234	-18.75	< 0.001
AP	1235	2.52	1.03	1234	-16.32	< 0.01
CS	1235	2.54	1.04	1234	-15.39	< 0.001
Note. ST = selection and training, AP = appraisal and promotion, CS = compensation and support.

[Insert Table 6 about here]

The development of the HRSPWD-18 offers significant value. One key premise of the development of HRSPWD-18 is that this measure views PWDs as human resources that must be developed (Huang, 2011; Miethlich, 2019), in contrast to the traditional medical model perspective, which views PWDs as a burden to economic and social development (Colin, 1999; Scullion, PA, 2010; Oliver 2012; Goering, Sara, 2015; Hoshiga, 2015). In this context, PWDs can take advantage of their values and abilities through scientifically based human resource development, thereby contributing to the employment and social integration of PWDs (Bourmaud, G. et al., 2012; Morwane, RE et al., 2021). Additionally, the HRSPWD-18 is the first scale for measuring human resource development to focus on PWDs. Previous scholars have defined the dimensions covered by human resource development, resulting in divisions of human resource development into two, four, or six dimensions (Wright et al., 2005; Wang, 2019; Tang et al., 2021; Cheng et al., 2022; Yu, 2022). Some scholars have expanded and extended the human resource development scale further by focusing on employee ownership, humanistic care, and democratic consultation (Guest, 2017; Salas-Vallina et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2023), but no studies have investigated human resource development for PWDs or designed specialized scales for this purpose. The design of the HRSPWD-18 plays an important role in the process of measuring and testing human resource development with regard to the employment process of PWDs. Third, the development of the HRSPWD-18 can enable relevant actors to track the progress of and trends in PWDs’ employment by reference to quantitative data, thus improving our understanding of the employment status and needs of the disabled population (Shaw & Gold, 2011). This approach enables the government to implement more targeted policy measures and helps firms evaluate and enhance their hiring rates for PWDs; it can also help firms promote career development and social integration among PWDs (Romeo & Yepes-Baldó, 2019). These efforts can raise public awareness of the challenges faced by PWDs in the context of employment and thus facilitate greater involvement in attempts to help PWDs achieve equal employment and reduce employment discrimination (Scroggins, 2007; Alam& Shin, 2023).

Validity is a crucial consideration in the development of a new scale, and such scales must be evaluated in terms of both content and structural validity. A scale's content must intuitively reflect the subjective employment experiences of disabled groups while simultaneously satisfying the criteria of professional assessment. The content of this scale was based on the transcriptions of two focus group discussions with PWDs. Focus group interviews are a suitable method for obtaining the subject group's views regarding relevant issues, particularly during the process of developing such a scale (Van Dun et al., 2011; 정은정, 2014; Miles et al., 2016; Zhou et al., 2021). The relevance, importance, and appropriateness of each scale item with regard to human resources in the context of PWDs were then rated by experts in turn, and the content validity of the scale was improved after the lowest-scoring item was removed. Prior to the formal distribution of the questionnaire, a pretest was conducted, and participants who completed the test submitted feedback concerning this process. Based on a review of this feedback, one of the scale items was reworded to make it more relevant to the context and logic of PWDs. This study followed the steps involved in developing a human resource scale strictly, progressing through three phases involving focus groups, expert evaluations, and a pretest (Rauch, 2005; Robinson, 2018; Kambur & Akar, 2021; Gunawan et al., 2022); accordingly, the process of developing the measurement instrument was scientifically sound. The 18-item version of the scale ensures comprehensive coverage of all aspects of human resource management in the context of PWDs. It combines universality, professionalism, and simplicity, thus identifying the HRSPWD-18 as a valuable tool for assessing the perceptions, current status, and expectations of PWDs regarding their human resources.

If a measurement instrument's structure contains biases, this situation can negatively impact the results (McCrae et al., 2011; Rodrigues & Lopes, 2013; Sevelius et al., 2020; Van Dam & Meulders, 2020). The HRSPWD-18 includes three primary dimensions, i.e., selection and training, appraisal and promotion, and compensation and support, as determined based on the EFA and CFA. The results of the factor analysis were consistent with the findings of previous research, which have indicated that these three dimensions are the main components of human resource management that must be measured (Wright et al., 2005; Wu et al., 2018; Wang, 2021; Zhao et al., 2022). In China, PWDs face certain barriers with regard to employment opportunities, and their ability to access the labor market is based on the assistance and employment security provided through welfare. Vocational training for PWDs can occur during both the preemployment and postemployment stages, and these two mutually reinforce each other in the task of empowering PWDs to obtain employment (Zhang, 2013; Zhou& Rong, 2015; Shi et al., 2017; He, 2018; Liu et al., 2021). The study combined the dimensions of recruitment selection and job training into a single dimension as a result of this special situation. The findings of this research were validated by conducting a CFA, which indicated that the dimensions of the scale were well defined, the coefficients of the model fit were consistent with the standard, the structural validity was good, and the measure was a valid tool for assessing the human resource management of PWDs.

This study has two limitations. First, we attempted to collect representative data in mainland China; however, due to the lack of up-to-date data support from the Chinese Disability Census, the sample's external validity needs additional validation. Second, the data were collected online, which may have unintentionally led to the exclusion of PWDs who had lost the ability to care for themselves, those who were not part of the disability community, and those in groups that lacked access to mobile phones, tablets, or computers.

A first step for future research could be to validate the stability of the scale structure. The HRSPWD-18 should be equally applicable across populations that exhibit different demographic information, such as region, level of education, income level, and type of disability. Additionally, the typology of the HRSPWD could be refined. For example, future researchers could develop human resources scales for PWDs working in their field of expertise, such as massage in the case of the blind persons, as well as human resources scales for PWDs who perform the same work as people without disabilities. Finally, although the data collected in the current study are cross-sectional, it may be worthwhile to introduce a temporal dimension in future research to explore the cumulative effect of human resources on PWDs and their relationships with other factors by conducting longitudinal studies.

The author(s) declare no potential conflicts of interest concerning the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

The authors disclose that no financial support was received for the research, writing, and/or publication of this article.

All procedures employed in this study that involved human participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant institution and national research committee, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its subsequent amendments, or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in the study.

Alam, M. S., & Shin, D. (2023). Developing a tool for disability accommodation complexity: A sequential mixed study. Work, 74(2), 575-594.
Beatty, J. E., Baldridge, D. C., Boehm, S. A., Kulkarni, M., & Colella, A. J. (2019). On the treatment of persons with disabilities in organizations: A review and research agenda.Human Resource Management,58(2), 119-137.
Becker, G. S. (2009).Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. University of Chicago press.
Bourmaud, G., & Rétaux, X. (2012). Review of practices for keeping people with disabilities in employment: moving beyond the concept of compensation to implement a developmental approach. Work, 41(Supplement 1), 4699-4708.
Buys, N., Matthews, L. R. and Randall, C. (2015), Contemporary vocational rehabilitation in Australia', Disability and rehabilitation, 37 (9), 820-824.
China Disabled Persons' Federation (February 20, 2021) Total number of persons with disabilities in China at the end of 2010 and the number of persons with various types and different levels of disabilities. China Disabled Persons' Federation. https://www.cdpf.org.cn/zwgk/zccx/cjrgk/15e9ac67d7124f3fb4a23b7e2ac739aa.html
Chou, Y. C., Lee, Y. C., Chang, S. C., & Yu, A. P. L. (2013). Evaluating the supports intensity scale as a potential assessment instrument for resource allocation for persons with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(6), 2056-2063.
Collins, A. B. (2007), Opportunities and Obligations in Dealing with the Disabled Staff and Customers in Hospitality Industry, Tourism Management in the 21st Century, Chang, P. R. (ed), Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York.
Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of Grounded Theory: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th ed.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA.
Denison, E. F. (1962). The sources of economic growth in the United States and the alternatives before us.
Dokumacı, A. (2019). The ‘disabilitization’of medicine: The emergence of Quality of Life as a space to interrogate the concept of the medical model. History of the Human Sciences, 32(5), 164-190.
Gewurtz, R., Langan, S., & Shand, D. (2016). Hiring people with disabilities: A scoping review. Work, 54(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-162265
Gibson, R. (2020). Graphic illustration of impairment: science fiction, Transmetropolitan and the social model of disability. Medical humanities, 46(1), 12-21.
Gida, P., & Ortlepp, K. (2007). Employment of people with disabilities: Implications for HR management practices.Acta Commercii,7(1), 135-150.
Goering, S. (2015). Rethinking disability: the social model of disability and chronic disease. Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine,8, 134-138.
Groschl, S. (2004). Current human resources practices affecting the employment of persons with disabilities in selected Toronto hotels: A case study.International journal of hospitality & tourism administration,5(3), 15-30.
Guest, D. E. (2017). Human resource management and employee well‐being: Towards a new analytic framework. Human resource management journal, 27(1), 22-38.
Gunawan, J., Aungsuroch, Y., Fisher, M. L., McDaniel, A. M., & Liu, Y. (2022). Competence‐based human resource management to improve managerial competence of first‐line nurse managers: a scale development. International journal of nursing practice, 28(1), e12936.
Hao, Y., & Xiao, R. (2022). How Disability Income Benefits Affect Employment for Persons with Disabilities in China: An Impairment-Based Work Disability Assessment Perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3428.
He Q.Y. (2018). Research on Employment Assistance for People with Disabilities in Ethnic Areas in the Era of "Internet+". Disability Research (02), 61-67. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=vdPasdvfHvuptdevNg7_Nn04ajnCjlqxDH1YNRO0zQBZYLVbqZkfzIn5KYZS8mO6CPjLTbqGDl_Nm1H-s6eHZ5tBBQLZ0EY_cEqnS9jUm5rBuWMF9Lv2Zj3F6-cwfD8xHX_gf9DuMjj3sA7MLSJBZw==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
Hogan, A. J. (2019). Moving away from the" medical model": The development and revision of the World Health Organization's Classification of Disability. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 93(2), 241-269.
Hoshiga, Ryoji & Tsai, E. S.. (2015). A test of the misconceptions of the social model of disability and its practical pitfalls. Society (06), 116-132. doi:10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2015.06.014.
HYDE, M. (2001). Exploring Disability: A Sociological Introduction. Colin Barnes, Geof Mercer and Tom Shakespeare. Cambridge: Polity, 1999,£ 49.50 (£ 14.95 pbk), 280 pp.(ISBN: 0-7456-1478-7).Sociology,35(1), 219-258.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kambur, E., & Akar, C. (2022). Human resource developments with the touch of artificial intelligence: a scale development study. International Journal of Manpower, 43(1), 168-205.
Kingori, R. M. (2020).Human resource disability-inclusive practices and the employment of persons with disabilities by commercial banks in Kenya(Doctoral dissertation, Strathmore University).
Kondracki, N. L., Wellman, N. S., & Amundson, D. R. (2002). Content analysis: Review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 34(4), 224-230.
Kostanjsek, N. (2011). Use of The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a conceptual framework and common language for disability statistics and health information systems. BMC public health, 11(Suppl 4), S3.
Kuznetsova, Y. (2012), 'Inclusive corporate culture and employment of persons with disabilities: analysis of CSR strategies of multinational enterprises in Norway and the UK', Proceedings of the 13th UFHRD International Conference on Human Resource Development Research and Practice Across Europe: The future of HRD - 2020 and beyond: challenges and opportunities, 23-25 May 2012, Famalicao, Portugal.
Lengnick‐Hall, M. L., Gaunt, P. M., & Kulkarni, M. (2008). Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource.Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management,47(2), 255-273.
Lucas Jr, R. E. (1988). On the mechanics of economic development.Journal of monetary economics,22(1), 3-42.
Lunsford, D. L., & Dolison, C. N. (2019). The Roles of Human Resource Development in Developing the Whole Person with Disabilities: A Conceptual Mode. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 31(4), 397-418.
MacDuffie, J. P. (1995). Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: Organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. ilr Review, 48(2), 197-221.
Markel, K. S. and Barclay, L. A. (2009), 'Addressing the underemployment of persons with disabilities: Recommendations for expanding organizational social responsibility', Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21 (4), 305-318.
McCrae, R. R., Kurtz, J. E., Yamagata, S., & Terracciano, A. (2011). Internal consistency, retest reliability, and their implications for personality scale validity. Personality and social psychology review, 15(1), 28-50.
McCraney, M. C. (2023). God’s Lordship over Disabilities: An Examination of the Social Model of Disability. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Miethlich, B., & Oldenburg, A. G. (2019). Employment of persons with disabilities as competitive advantage: An analysis of the competitive implications. In 33nd International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Education Excellence and Innovation Management through Vision 2020, Granada, Spain, 10-11.04. 2019 (pp. 7146-7158). King of Prussia, PA: IBIMA Publishing.
Miles, J. R., Mallinckrodt, B., & Recabarren, D. A. (2016). Reconsidering focus groups and Rasch model item response theory in instrument development. The Counseling Psychologist, 44(2), 226-236.
Mizunoya, S., & Mitra, S. (2013). Is there a disability gap in employment rates in developing countries?. World Development, 42, 28-43.
Molina-Azorin, J. F., López-Gamero, M. D., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & Pertusa-Ortega, E. M. (2021). Environmental management, human resource management and green human resource management: A literature review. Administrative Sciences, 11(2), 48.
Monforte, J., Devís Devís, J., & Úbeda Colomer, J. (2020). Disability, physical activity and health: Conceptual models and practical implications. Cultura_Ciencia_Deporte [CCD], 15(45).
Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., ... & Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient education and counseling, 82(3), 420-428.
Morwane, R. E., Dada, S., & Bornman, J. (2021). Barriers to and facilitators of employment of persons with disabilities in low-and middle-income countries: A scoping review. African Journal of Disability, 10.
Naraharisetti, R., & Castro, M. C. (2016). Factors associated with persons with disability employment in India: a cross-sectional study. BMC public health, 16(1), 1-8.
National Technical Committee for Standardization of Rehabilitation and Specialized Equipment for Persons with Disabilities (SAC/TC 148) (2010). Classification and grading of disabilities of persons with disabilities. GB/T 26341-2010. General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of the People's Republic of China; Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China.
Negri, L., Spoladore, D., Fossati, M., Arlati, S., Cocchi, M. G., Corbetta, C., ... & Sacco, M. (2023). Proposal for an ICF-based methodology to foster the return to work of persons with disability. Work, 74(2), 649-662.
Oliver, M., & Barnes, C. (2012).The new politics of disablement. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Parmelee, J. H., Perkins, S. C., & Sayre, J. J. (2007). " What About People Our Age?" Applying Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to Uncover How Political Ads Alienate College Students. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 183-199.
Pérez-Conesa, F. J., Romeo, M., & Yepes-Baldó, M. (2020). Labour inclusion of people with disabilities in Spain: the effect of policies and human resource management systems. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(6), 785-804.
Rauch, A., Frese, M., & Utsch, A. (2005). Effects of human capital and long–term human resources development and utilization on employment growth of small–scale businesses: A causal analysis. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 29(6), 681-698.
Retief, M., & Letšosa, R. (2018). Models of disability: A brief overview. HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies,74(1).
Robinson, M. A. (2018). Using multi‐item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management. Human resource management, 57(3), 739-750.
Rodrigues, D., & Lopes, D. (2013). The Investment Model Scale (IMS): Further studies on construct validation and development of a shorter version (IMS-S). The Journal of general psychology, 140(1), 16-28.
Romeo, M., & Yepes-Baldó, M. (2019). Future work and disability: Promoting job motivation in special employment centers in Spain. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(8), 1447.
Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth.Journal of political economy,94(5), 1002-1037.
Salas-Vallina, A., Pozo, M., & Fernandez-Guerrero, R. (2020). New times for HRM? Well-being oriented management (WOM), harmonious work passion and innovative work behavior. Employee Relations: The International Journal, 42(3), 561-581.
Sang, K., Calvard, T., & Remnant, J. (2022). Disability and academic careers: Using the social relational model to reveal the role of human resource management practices in creating disability. Work, Employment and Society, 36(4), 722-740.
Schultz, T. W. (1961). Investment in human capital.The American economic review,51(1), 1-17.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations, 48, 381–410.
Scroggins, W. A. (2007). The measurement and structural modeling of the reasonableness of workplace accommodations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 19, 279-291.
Scullion, P. A. (2010). Models of disability: their influence in nursing and potential role in challenging discrimination.Journal of advanced nursing,66(3), 697-707
Sevelius, J. M., Chakravarty, D., Dilworth, S. E., Rebchook, G., & Neilands, T. B. (2020). Gender affirmation through correct pronoun usage: Development and validation of the transgender women’s importance of pronouns (TW-IP) scale. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(24), 9525.
Shaw, A., & Gold, D. (2011). Development of a tool for the assessment of employment preparedness specifically for persons who are blind or partially sighted. Work, 39(1), 49-62.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research. Sage publications.
Swanson, R. A. (1999). The foundations of performance improvement and implications for practice. Advances in developing human resources,1(1), 1-25.
Tang, G., Chen, Y., Jiang, Y., Paillé, P., & Jia, J. (2018). Green human resource management practices: scale development and validity. Asia pacific journal of human resources, 56(1), 31-55.
Van Dam, K., & Meulders, M. (2020). The Adaptability Scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
Van Dun, Z., Bloemer, J., & Henseler, J. (2011). Perceived customer contact centre quality: Conceptual foundation and scale development. The Service Industries Journal, 31(8), 1347-1363.
Wang, C. L. (2021). New frontiers and future directions in interactive marketing: Inaugural Editorial. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 15(1), 1-9.
Wright, P. M., Gardner, T. M., Moynihan, L. M., & Allen, M. R. (2005). The relationship between HR practices and firm performance: Examining causal order. Personnel psychology, 58(2), 409-446.
Wu, C. H., Parker, S. K., Wu, L. Z., & Lee, C. (2018). When and why people engage in different forms of proactive behavior: Interactive effects of self-construals and work characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 61(1), 293-323.
Yang Shine. (2015). Institutions and lives of people with disabilities: from the "individual model" to the "universal model". Society (06), 85-115. doi:10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2015.06.013.
Zhou, T. Shu, Ma, Q. H., Yang, Y. Chen, H. F.. (2021). Development and validation of customer service hexagonalization scale. Journal of Management (01), 118-126. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=vdPasdvfHvvSR6bjDuJn8bl6wJNxTlVQsRCXwGnGhlJcl7KNXcp5TGb9kEl6FzRdnbCotR76
LmrJIsnNQa0PTAnVHV911j5sPSyQyU6mwmpCuX2Ju4xObuCCNhCy74F2OxFU3EczvOQttmWFNbH5Pw==&uniplatform=NZKPT&language=CHS
정은정. (2014). 전략적 인적자원개발 측정을 위한 구성요인 탐색 및 문항 개발. HRD 연구, 16(2), 87-112.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Human resource for people with disabilities: scale design, development and validation

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

1.1 People with disabilities are a significant “human resource” that must be cultivated

1.3 Research gap

2 Methods

2.1 Scale development

2.2 Scale validation

2.2.1 Procedures

2.2.2 Participants

2.2.3 Measures

2.2.4 Data analysis

3 Results

3.1 Exploratory factor analysis

3.2 Confirmatory factor analysis

3.2.1 First-order model analysis

3.2.2 Second-order model analysis

3.3 Human Resources Scale for People with Disabilities (HRSPWD-18)

4 Discussion

5 Limitations and suggestions for future research

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1