Critical Factors for Accessibility and Wayfinding for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities
Patricia Salmi, M.S., Design, Housing, and Apparel, College of Human Ecology, Graduate Student, University of Minnesota, USA
Delores Ginthner, M.S.
Denise Guerin, Ph.D.
Research Problem
Architectural accessibility for people with disabilities has been the subject of extensive research and examination for quite some time. With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), (1990), architectural accessibility to public buildings became a civil right, and state and the international building codes began to reflect this right (International Building Code, 2000). While the ADA has done much to make buildings accessible for people with physical impairments, it has had virtually no impact on environmental accessibility issues for people with intellectual disabilities. One of these issues is wayfinding, or the act of finding a path to a desired destination.
This study examined and assessed environmental features that cued wayfinding behavior for 13 persons with mild intellectual disabilities (ID) and compared these results with the wayfinding behavior of 10 persons from the general population (comparison group). The study also examined individual decision-making capabilities in both groups and based the methods for this aspect of the study on a previous study on residual wayfinding ability in people with dementia of the Alzheimer's type (Passini, Rainville, Marchand, & Joanette, 1998). It was hypothesized that participants from the comparison group would perform and successfully complete the wayfinding task more efficiently than participants from the ID group and that there would be observable differences between the two groups. The study was exploratory in nature and sought to gather information on an under-explored topic, that of wayfinding and accessibility for persons with intellectual disability.
MethodologyThrough the use of a field study participants were asked to find any public restroom in Rosedale Center, a large regional shopping mall in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota metro area. None of the participants had ever visited the mall. Participants were taken through the task individually and accompanied by a trained assistant who tape-recorded and timed the wayfinding task, recorded errors and kept the individual on task. The same assistant was used throughout the study. Participants were asked to perform the task twice: the first time through the task allowed the researcher to observe how participants handled an unknown environment and what types of decisions the individuals were capable of making. The second time (which followed immediately after the first time) provided information on what built environment cues were used by participants to recall the path to the target destination. Again, types and levels of decisions that individuals had to make were observed and analyzed. The wayfinding activity was scored using a decision-making typology that assigned a hierarchy to the various types and levels of decision-making including decisions that utilized information that was available in the built environment (A-type decisions), and decisions that involved planning and exploration (B-type decisions). Additional variables that were examined included signage, landmarks, color, lighting, maps, wayfinding learning style, wayfinding methods, previous experience with malls, orienting initially to an information source, and spatial layout.
Analysis/Discussion
A comparative analysis was used to examine the results, comparing the level of decision-making ability of persons with intellectual disabilities to a comparison group. Also compared were the wayfinding methods and styles used by both groups, and use of various environmental cues.
Participants from the comparison group did complete the wayfinding task more efficiently than participants in the ID group, and there were observable differences in wayfinding abilities between the two groups.
Average time on task for the comparison group was 5 minutes, 20 seconds compared to 15 minutes, 30 seconds for the ID group. Both groups used signage but found the signage at this mall difficult to use for a number of reasons including poor lighting of signage, size of text, and placement of signage. There was a strong attempt to use maps and directories on the part of persons with intellectual disabilities (54%) compared to the comparison group at 30%. However, for those persons in the ID group with the exception of one participant, the information provided by the maps was inaccessible. One participant with ID attempted to use a map to obtain information a total of seven times but was unsuccessful in obtaining any useful information. The comparison group showed a strong tendency to initially orient to a source of information (90%) compared to 61% of the ID group. When persons in the ID group did orient to a source of information, primarily another person, they could not say why they chose that person to question, giving rise to safety concerns for individuals in this group. In addition, people offering directions to participants gave three to five step instructions that participants in the ID group found difficult to remember.
All participants found the general layout of the space easy to understand except for restroom location. This could possibly be due to the fact that restrooms were located in a sub-corridor that came off of a secondary corridor. With regard to decision-making ability, only 15% of the ID group as compared to 70% of the comparison group were able to make wayfinding decisions based on inference, the highest level of decision-making. Decisions that use memory were performed by 85% of the ID group compared with 100% of the comparison group.
A wayfinding model (Figure N) was developed to reflect study results.
Figure N: Wayfinding Processing Model [ Image Description ]
Summary of Results
Results showed that the participants from the comparison group were approximately three times more efficient during the first trip than persons in the ID group. However, on the second trip, the ID group nearly matched the time of the comparison group's first trip. In addition, there were observable differences in wayfinding abilities between the groups, notably orienting initially to a source of information and knowing who was a safe person to ask. Some of the variables that were found to be important to wayfinding success include signage, landmarks, spatial layout, and previous knowledge of mall settings. Overall, maps were either not an accessible source of information or they were not utilized. It was also found that this space did not support the most common wayfinding learning style, that of point-to-point wayfinding or linear style. Furthermore, persons with intellectual disabilities were able to form cognitive maps, contrary to findings from a previous study.
Group Discussion
Discussion of this topic will be stimulated through use of a handout (floorplan) that asks participants to notate various built environmental features they deem important to wayfinding. A brief question and answer period will follow.
References
American Association on Mental Retardation (AAMR) (1992). Mental Retardation: Definition, classification, and systems for supports (9th ed.). Washington DC: Author.
International Building Code (2000). United States of America: International Code Council, Inc.
Passini, R., Rainville, C., Marchand, N., & Joanette, Y. (1998). Wayfinding and dementia: Some research findings and a new look at design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 15(2), 133-151.
Image Description: This is a chart that shows the wayfinding process for humans that resulted from the study. The chart flows from left to right, starting with the two primary influences on decision-making in wayfinding: environmental factors and cognitive influences. Included in environmental factors are spatial layout, maps, signage, landmarks, lighting, color, and a human information source. Cognitive influences encompass previous experiences such as pattern recognition and assignment of meaning, wayfinding style (linear, spatial overview, or a combination of the two), and wayfinding method (orient to information source, piloting, cognitive mapping). Both environmental and cognitive influences impact two types of decision-making: A-type decisions that are based on information available in the environment, and B-type decisions involving planning and exploring. These decisions feed into action(s). If the action(s) produced a positive result, the person proceeded to wayfinding success. If performance-oriented feedback was negative (i.e., unsuccessful), the person had to go back to A and B type decision-making and attempt to solve the task again. [ Back to Image ]