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

.

