' ipfiwms

mmMJMQ=
25¢ per day per item

RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIAL§:
Place in book return to ram
charge from circulation moor

Wflofimm

Lmfiggflm4

 

 

 

HANDICAPPER CLOTHING AND SHOPPING PROBLEMS:
SELECTION, RETAILER AWARENESS,
AND STORE ACCESSIBILITY

By
Phyliis BeII MiTIer

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partia] fulfiilment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Human Environment and Design

1980

5.57/9 7W

ABSTRACT
HANDICAPPER CLOTHING AND SHOPPING PROBLEMS:

SELECTION, RETAILER AWARENESS,
AND STORE ACCESSIBILITY

By
Phyllis Bell Miller

The objective of this study was to determine the nature and degree
of handicapper clothing acquisition and shopping problems and to ascer-
tain retailers' knowledge of those difficulties. Retailers and handi-
cappers were queried and their responses were compared. Individual stores
were also surveyed and rated for accessibility.

The responses of retailers were significantly different from those
of handicappers. Store personnel thought that the clothing and accessi-
bility problems were more severe than they actually are. The retailers
were, therefore, unaware of the real difficulties that handicappers
encounter.

Handicappers experienced numerous accessibility problems when
shopping for apparel. Accessibility problems were evident in all of the
stores surveyed, which included men's, women's, specialty, department,
and discount stores. Parking facilities, pathways to stores, store
furnishings, and customer conveniences were problematic. Most of
the stores surveyed were fairly inaccessible to handicappers. Only
eight of the 28 stores reflected efforts to increase accessibility.
Store accessibility, rather than clothing use and acquisition, was

determined to be the major problem facing handicappers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

During this project, which involves many new realms of
research, I was fortunate enough to have the gracious support
and assistance of many individuals. I am deeply grateful to
Dr. Jacquelyn Orlando, Dr. Leonard Sawisch, Dr. Donald Galvin,
Dr. Duncan Case, Eric Gentile, Roy Feber, the retailers, and
the handicapper agency personnel for all of the time that they
invested in this project.

Special thanks are extended to Carol and Lisa Addams,
Sandra Christmas, Avis Curtiss, Pat Kay, and Lynn Waters,
friends who helped me with this project when I really needed
assistance. Ultimate praise is accorded my mother, Mrs.
Bessie F. Bell, for her unlimited time and financial support.
I also thank my dear father, Mr. Charles Bell, for all of his

encouragement and financial assistance while he lived.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . .

Objectives . . . . . . . . .
Limitations . . . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERITURE .

Introduction.

Clothing Concerns .

.Sources of Clothing

Retail Management and Sales Personnel
Accessibility, .

Summary

Determination of the Study .

Statement of Hypotheses .

METHODOLOGY .

Research Design.
Establishing the Study . . . .
Sampling Techniques . . . . . .

Development of the Instruments.

Pretest . . . . . . . . . a

Procedure.

iii

(II-#«F

16
20
23
28
31
32

33
33
34
35
39
4-3
45

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Handicappers .
Retailers .

Stores .
Hypotheses.

Discussion.

SUMMARY AND RECCOMMENDATIONS.
Summary.

Reccommendations.

APPENDICES.
A. Correspondence .
8. Instruments .
C. Participating Handicapper Agencies
D.

Supplementary Tables .

LIST OF REFERENCES .

iv

48
48
67
75
90
93

99
99
107

108
108
111
161
164

193

—l
0

d d —J d —‘ —‘
01 h m N -‘
. . . . .

16.

17.

18.
19.

OQmNOSU'l-DWN

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Physical Characteristics by Sex
Distribution of Devices by Sex .

Use of Multiple Devices

Physical Characteristics by Use of Devices .
Handicapper Clothing Sources.

Shopping Locations Preferred by Handicappers
Shopping Areas Preferred by Handicappers.
Handicapper Accessibility Concerns.

Devices by Accessibility Concerns .

Physical Characteristics by Accessibility Concerns
Handicapper Clothing and Shopping Concerns .
Devices by Clothing Concerns.

PhysicaI Characteristics by Clothing Concerns .

Retailers' Assistance of Handicappers Using Devices .

Retailer Responses Concerning Handicapper Market
and Services . . . . . . . .

Handicapper Accessibility Concerns as Seen by
Retailers . . . . . . . . . .

Handicapper Clothing and Shopping Concerns as
Seen by Retailers . . . . . . .

Location of Stores Surveyed .

Mean Ratings for Store Accessibility Concerns .

50
51
52
53
55
56
57
59
60
61
64
65
66
69

71

73

74
76
77

20.

21.

Mean Accessibility Ratings of Store Locations
and Frequency of Use by Handicappers

Mean Accessibility Ratings of Stores by Area.

Analysis of Variance Summary Tables

D1.
D2.
03.
D4.
05.
D6.
D7.
D8.
D9.
D10.
D11.
D12.
013.
014.
D15.

Appearance .

Durability .

Comfort .

Dressing Ease .

Fasteners

Mobility.

Safety

Ability to Purchase Suitable Clothing .
Transportation.

Access to Store

Difficulty in Moving Through Store .
Shopping Difficulty .

Fitting Room Accessibility.
Inability to Try on Clothing .
Unknowledgeable or Unhelpful Staff .

Planned Comparisons Summary Tables

016.
.D17.
D18.
019.
020.

Appearance .
Durability .
Comfort .
Dressing Ease .

Fasteners

vi

- 88
. 90

-164
-165
-166
-167
~168
~169
«170
~171
~172
-173
-174
-175
-176
.177
-178

-179
.180
-181
.182
-183

021 .
022.
023.
024.
025.
026.
027.
028.
029.

Mobility
Safety .
Transportation

Access to Store .

Difficulty in Moving Through Store.

Shopping Difficulty.
Fitting Room Accessibility
Inability to Try on Clothing.

Unknowledgeable or Unhelpful Staff.

vii

184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192

LIST OF FIGURES

Accessibility Ratings of Specialty.
Department, and Discount Stores

Accessibility Ratings of Men's and
Women's Clothing Sales Areas

viii

83

87

INTRODUCTION

There are more than 36 million handicappers in the United States
(Bowe, 1978),.over 260 thousand of whom live in Michigan (Bureau of
Rehabilitation, 1978). Because of deinstitutionalization, barrier-free
architecture, and increased access to education and transportation,
handicappers have become active participants in all phases of community
life.

With the handicapper's increased visibility and mobility, there
is a need for clothing that will facilitate his/her lifestyle. Garments
that allow greater independence, mobility, and safety, while enhancing
the wearer's appearance, are necessary. However, handicappers often
find it difficult to secure suitable garments and have numerous accessi-
bility problems when shopping (Bruck, 1978; Ewald, 1975; Macarthy,
1973; Reich, 1979).

The purpose of this investigation is to analyze the clothing
selection and store accessibility problems that handicappers encounter.
This information will be used in the development of an extension-
funded, community education program for handicappers and retailers.

It is essential that both groups become aware of the problems involved
if shopping facilities and clothing selection are to improve for
handicappers.

Over the past twenty years, a body of research known as diffusion

theory has emerged and has been applied to marketing (King, 1976).

2
It is possible to apply this theory in creating an awareness of handicap-
per clothing and shopping problems.

The four crucial elements in the analysis of the diffusion of inno-
vations are l) the innovation (an idea perceived as new by the individual),
its communication from one individual to another, 3) within a social
system 4) over tjmg_(King, 1976; Rogers, 1962; Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).
In the diffusion proceSs, a new idea spreads from its source of invention
or creation to its ultimate users or adopters.

The innovation-decision/adoption process, on a personal level,
is the mental process through which an individual passes from first
hearing about an innovation to its final acceptance or rejection. Accor-
ding to Rogers and Shoemaker (1971), the four stages of the innovation-
decision process are knowledge, persuasion, decision, and confirmation.

In the knowledge function of this process, the individual is
exposed to the innovation's existence and gains some understanding of
how it functions. After being exposed, he evaluates the importance or
relevance of the stimulus and becomes sensitive to it (Zaltman et al.,
1972). The individual may have an interest in an innovation because an
existing need is satisfied by it; or a need may develop or become appar-
ent when he learns that the innovation exists. Retailers' knowledge and
awareness of the handicapper's clothing and shopping problems and of his
potential market value should be documented in order to begin the process
and change the situation.

At the persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process, the
individual becomes more psychologically involved with the innovation and
actively seeks information about it. A favorable or unfavorable

attitude is formed toward the innovation (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

3

According to Spicer (1952), people resist proposed changes that they do
not understand. This stage, therefore, is the crucial point at which
knowledge should be provided, enabling the individual to judge the
idea's utility in terms of his own situation. (He also seeks reinforcement
and assurance from peers. This study will provide the knowledge that
retailers and handicappers need in order to determine the reasons behind
clothing and accessibility problems.

Contribution to the stages of knowledge and persuasion should
aid in the latter stages of the process. As the individual engages in
activities which lead to a choice to either adopt or reject the in-
novation, the decision function of the innovation process begins. The
innovation is usually tried on a probationary basis to determine its
utility in the individual's situation. A small-scale trial is often
part of the decision to adopt; it is also an important means of
decreasing the perceived risk of the innovation for the adopter. Usually,
innovations that can be divided for trial use are adopted more rapidly
than those that must be adopted in total (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

The innovation-decision process concludes with the confirmation
function, in which the invididual seeks reinforcement for the innova-
tion decision that he has made. However, he may reverse his previous
decision if he is exposed to conflicting messages about the innova-
tion-(Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Zaltman also identifies the stage
of resolution in which the individual resolves the inconsistencies
between his attitude and the decision and, as a result, changes his
profile.

This research will provide not only information about the clothing

selection and store accessibility problems of handicappers; it is also

4

concerned with retailers's awareness or knowledge of these problems and
their attitudes toward serving handicapper consumers. The problems of
both groups can then be considered, and an educational program that
will benefit everyone concerned can be developed. As a result, an inno-
vation-decision process involving handicapper clothing and accessibility
needs will be set in motion in the minds of handicappers and retailers.

Changes in the individual attitudes and/or awareness of handi-
cappers and retailers will result in the diffusion of new ideas through-
out their respective social systems. This will lead to increased inter-
action between both groups and to the trial and adoption of many modi-
fications that will benefit handicapper shoppers and eventually increase

retailers' profits.

Objectives of the Study

The overall goal of this research was to provide extension with the
information to develop an educational program for handicappers and re-
tailers. Toward this end, the objectives were 1) to determine retailers‘
awareness and knowledge of handicapper clothing and accessibility needs,
and 2) to determine the nature and severity of the clothing acquisition
and accessibility problems encountered by handicappers. Secondary objec-
tives were to examine handicapper shopping practices and to determine the
extent of retailers' preparation to serve and experience with handicapper

COI‘ISUIIET‘S .

Limitations

 

In an effort to query people who have the most control over their

own wardrobes, only adult handicappers, aged eighteen and over, were

sampled. People whose only handicapper characteristics were aural,
visual, mental, emotional, or speech-related were not included in
the population in order to concentrate primarily on other areas of
the body.

Only handicappers served by agencies were sampled, as there was
no other effective means of locating this population. Because the
handicapper sample was located through key agencies, only agencies that
could distinguish between handicapper and non-handicapper membership

could be sampled.

Definition of Terms

 

Physical characteristic: Any physiologically or anatomically
modifying condition that involves the following:

- basic, fundamental movements (resistance to movement,
limited range of motion, etc.)

- single, small motor movements

- complex, small motor movements

- perceptual abilities (sensory loss, limited body awareness,
etc.)

- body form divergence (kyphosis, lordosis, scoliosis)

- special conditions of movement (use of wheelchair, crutches, etc.)

- the use of other prosthetic or orthotic devices (Yep, 1976).

Handicapper: One who experiences any of the above physical

 

characteristics (Gentile and Taylor, 1976).

Clothing retailer: Anyone who assists customers with purchases.

 

Store accessibility: The degree of ease with which a handicapper

 

customer may approach, enter and utilize the services of establishment,

6
according to ANSI (American National Standards Institute) standards,

state codes, and the personal experience of handicappers.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

 

Clothing is one of the most powerful forms of non-verbal communi-
cation. It reflects personality as well as body image, which encompasses
self perception and personal aspirations. These factors affect the cloth-
ing that is selected and that becomes part of the body image (Newton,
1976). Because of their physical characteristics, handicappers have
difficulty in obtaining clothing that accurately conveys their body
images and enhances self-esteem. Attractive clothing aids in the develop-
ment of a higher self concept by giving the handicapper confidence in
his appearance (Ahrbeck and Friend, 1976)..

Handicappers encounter several obstacles in obtaining appealing,
functional apparel. Because their characteristics modify their physical
abilities and bodily functions, clothing must be utilitarian and easy to
manipulate, allowing optimal independence. The use of orthotic and pros-
thetic aids greatly influences garment style, construction, and fabric
selection. Assistive devices place stress on clothing and modify the
body's size, shape, and posture. An understanding of handicapper cloth-
ing concerns is necessary in determining the direction of efforts to
improve selection.

Handicapper shopping habits and preferred methods of clothing acqui-
sition may be affected by store accessibility and by the kind of service
that they receive. In order to accurately survey and evaluate stores for

shopping ease, it is necessary to understand the factors that influence

accessibility. Retailers' attitudes toward handicappers and knowledge of
their needs should be considered as well.

Though there are few studies concerning the shopping practices of
handicappers, much research has been done on the elderly. These studies
have been included in the review of literature. During the aging process,
individuals acquire numerous handicapper characteristics and begin to
rely on assistive devices (Atchley, 1972; Hoffman, 1979; Tate and Glisson,
1961). For this reason, they encounter many of the same difficulties with

clothing selection and store accessibility that handicappers experience.

Clothing Concerns ,

According to research, handicappers tend to experience considerable 7'
difficulty in obtaining attractive clothing that satisfies their physical 1
needs. Limited large-scale movement, resistance to movement, and limited 7
range of motion affect overall clothing style, the placement of openings, :
and fabric choice. The proper selection of fasteners is crucial to the
dressing ease of people with modified small and complex motor movement
(Hoffman, 1979).

When perceptual abilities are altered, safety becomes an important
concern. Easily removed garments are essential for people with slower
reaction time. Clothing that does not impede motion is also necessary.
Those who experience sensory loss or limited body awareness require flame
retardant fabrics, garments that provide warmth, and clothing that is not
bulky (Yep, 1976).

Those whose strength and endurance are limited require lightweight
clothing. Apparel should be styled for ease in dressing, being adaptable

to different dressing procedures and having easily manipulated fasteners.

For incontinent persons, garments should provide protection, be easily
removable, and be washable. Those who drool have similar needs (Yep,
1976).

The use of orthotic and prosthetic aids brings about numerous cloth-
ing problems. They effect changes in body shape, posture, and movement.
As a result, garment fit and comfort are altered and clothing abrasion
increases (Scott, 1959; Yep, 1976). Body form divergence, for which a
brace or corset may be required, also modifies body shape, making cloth-

ing alterations necessary.

Appearance

The use of assistive devices causes body shape and posture to
become altered, and clothing may appear ill-fitting. Wheelchair users
experience difficulty because the seated figure is longer in back and
shorter in front. As a result, folds of excess fabric form across the lap,
and garments pull down in back. Clothing also rides up, due to the body's
increased length in the seated position, and appears to be too short.
Necklines may gap because of the body's forward posture (Bowar, 1978;
Hoffman, 1979; Yep, 1976).

Crutch users encounter the opposite problem. As they walk, waistline
seams ride up and separates gap and pull apart. Because the body is in a
forward posture, there is usually insufficient back fullness, and garments
tend to hike up (Rice, 1971).

When braces and artificial limbs were worn, the female subjects in
Rice's study (1971) found that their garments became too snug and pro-
vided too little ease in the hip area. Snug clothing revealed the assis-
tive devices worn underneath it as well as distorting the shape of the

body. Orthopaedic footwear, which was necessary with braces and

10

artificial limbs, was considered unattractive and unsuitable with dress-
ier garments. In Ewald's study (1975), the male subjects reported many

of the same problems. People with spinal curvatures, who also wear braces,
find that alterations are necessary for a satisfactory fit. Their cloth-
ing tends to wrinkle and does not camouflage variations in body shape
(Newton, 1973).

Several mail order businesses sell clothing designed to meet the
needs of handicappers. However, many pe0p1e fail to use these clothing
sources; garments often lack aesthetic appeal and have an institutional
look. In some cases, costs are also prohibitively high. Alterations may
still be needed for mail-ordered apparel as well (Ahrbeck and Friend,

1976).

Durability

Clothing durability is an important concern for many handicappers,
especially those using orthoses and prostheses. Wear from these devices
is the greatest problem. The men in Ewald's study (1975) reported that
artificial limbs caused excessive abrasion and wear. They were also dis-
satisfied with the durability of garment construction. In Rice's study
(1971), women with artificial limbs said that holes developed in the
seats of their clothing. The joints of wooden limbs emitted rust and
grease, making frequent laundering necessary. Their garments also
stretched out of shape faster. Women who wore braces found that the metal
joints caused small holes, snags, and pills to form in garments.
Abrasion from the screws on braces caused hems to snag and rip out during
walking (Rice, 1971). Scott (1959) found that handicapper homemakers who
used crutches had strain and wear in the underarm, sleeve, and back

bodice areas; this was caused by the tension placed on clothing when the

11
women stood or sat, and by the enlarged arm muscles that develop as the
result of prolonged use of crutches.

In cases of limited bodily movement, the strain placed on garments
during the processes of dressing and undressing causes them to wear out
more rapidly. Frequent launderings due to incontinence and accidents with
food also shorten the life of apparel (Newton, 1973). During daily activi-
ties, many handicappers, especially those who use mobility devices, must
stretch when reaching for items; as a result, clothing rips out from the

excessive strain placed on it (Hoffman, 1979).

Comfort

Clothing comfort depends on several factors. For people with limited
strength and who move about with difficulty, heavy clothing can be an
impediment (Hoffman, 1979). Fabrics should not be restrictive and inhibit
comfortable movement (Macarthy, 1973). As well as the fabric, the clothing
itself must allow freedom of movement; tight, binding garments affect cir-
culation and cause discomfort (Newton, 1973). When there is decreased
bodily movement and circulation, clothing should provide adequate warmth.
However, bulk should be avoided because of the possible development of
pressure sores (Kernaleguen, 1979; Macarthy, 1973).

Because of the greater effort that some handicappers exert when moving
about, they perspire more freely. There is a need for fabrics that will ab-
sorb perspiration and allow it to evaporate. In addition, people who per-
spire heavily have expressed a preference for design features, such as
kimono sleeves, that do not allow fabric to cling to moist skin (Macarthy,
1973; Scott, 1959).

Many handicappers and elderly people Spend much of their time sitting,
so their clothing must be comfortable in both sitting and in standing po-
sitions. Garments must be loose enough to avoid tightness and strain

,/

/ 7 '5.
i / 7
1' I

12

in the abdominal and hip areas when the wearer is seated and so that
skirts and pants do not ride up uncomfortably. High collars, which are
binding around the necks of seated persons, should be avoided (Hoffman,
1979). For crutch users, clothing with extra ease for movement is more
comfortable; underarm padding helps to alleviate pressure on the skin

(Hoffman, 1979; Yep, 1974).

Dressing Ease

Dressing is often difficult for individuals with limited eye-hand
coordination and balance, muscular weakness, contracture of joints,
spastic muscles, and limited range of motion (Newton, 1976). Clothing
with openings that are small or difficult to reach and that is made of
inflexible fabrics makes dressing and undressing troublesome and time
consuming. The presence of many or closely placed fasteners complicates
the process (Bowar, 1977; Macarthy, 1973).

Appliances, such as braces, crutches, and wheelchairs, also cause
problems in dressing. Tight clothing, with narrow sleeves, cuffs, or
pant legs, is difficult to pull over braces and other devices. Knit
fabrics catch and snag on orthoses and prostheses.}Because they have
limited balance, wheelchair and crutch users require garments with large
or complete openings that allow them to dress in seated<nr lying positions.
Conventional garments with small openings are especially inconvenient

for them (Hoffman, 1979; Macarthy, 1973).

Fasteners
The manipulation of fasteners is one of the greatest difficulties
that many handicappers face. Muscular weakness, limited small and

complex motor movement and modified eye-hand coordination, are the main

13

factors that effect the ability to manipulate fasteners (Hoffman, 1979;
Newton, 1973). Small buttons, snaps, hooks and eyes, and prong buckles are
some of the most difficult fasteners to handle; they require a firm
grasp, finger dexterity, and good eye-hand coordination. Zippers are
often difficult to hold in position, and their tabs are difficult for
some people to grasp (Bowar, 1978; Macarthy, 1973). The male subjects in
Ewald's study (1975) were particularly dissatisfied with the fasteners
usually found on menswear, which included small buttons and hooks.

The problems are magnified when fasteners are slippery or are sewn
too close to the garment for easy manipulation. When possible, fasteners
should be eliminated from clothing designed for handicappers with the
above physical characteristics; the processes of dressing and undressing

would be simplified (Bowar, 1978; Hoffman, 1979).

Mobility

Many physical characteristics and assistive devices alter the
posture and movement of the body. As a result, clothing that will not
restrict the body with modified mobility is necessary3~Whee1chair users
require extra garment ease in the sleeve, underarm, chest, and back
areas; their clothing often tears under the strain of the vigorous acti-
vity needed to propel a wheelchair. Reaching for items from a wheelchair
also places stress on clothing (Scott, 1959). While apparel with exces-
sive fullness may get caught in the wheels, clothing that is too tight
not only restricts movement but makes self transfers difficult (Macarthy,
1973).

When crutches are used, the body assumes a forward-leaning posture;
this new position decreases the back fullness of garments and makes

ambulation laborious. Crutch users also need additional clothing ease

14

under the arms and around the upper body. However, extremely full
garments should be avoided; they can catch on crutches and footwear,
causing falls (Hoffman, 1979; Rice, 1971). Both wheelchair and crutch
users should avoid high necklines; they tend to roll up uncomfortably
during bodily movement (Scott, 1959).

Because of their bulk, braces and artificial limbs often make
garments too snug to allow free movement without placing strain on cloth-
ing (Hoffman, 1979). For individuals with limited strength, clothing
should not be heavy or cumbersome, making it necessary to exert extra
energy when moving about (Scott, 1959). For people who use their hands
to aid in bodily movement, such as those who have wheelchairs, crutches,
and walkers, suspension systems are especially important. Pockets, cad-
dies, and other means of transporting items make mobility easier and

safer (Scott, 1959).

Safety

Physical characteristics and assistive devices intensify the need
for safe clothing among handicappers. Because falls are the second lead-
ing cause of deaths and injury in the United States, garment features
that decrease the possibility of accidents are necessary, especially for
people with limited mobility (Hoffman, 1979). Full garments may obstruct
the individual's view of the ground and cause falls, particularly when
crutches, walkers, canes, and other mobility aids are used. Dangling
clothing sections, such as full sleeves, sashes, and tie belts, can catch
on furniture or in assistive devices and cause falls; low pockets may
get caught on door knobs or other projections and cause the wearer to be

thrown down (Hoffman, 1979; Macarthy, 1973). People with limited balance

15

can trip because of slippery shoe soles and loosely fitting footwear
(Macarthy, 1973).

Burns are also a major cause of injury and death (Hoffman, 1979).
For people with limited body awareness and slower reaction time, loose,
dangling garments are hazardous around sources of fire. The use of flame-
retardant fabrics reduces the possibility of serious burns. Clothing that
can be removed quickly is mandatory for those who move more slowly
(Macarthy, 1973).

Clothing that places pressure on the body should be avoided, espec-
ially by individuals with sensory loss. Thick seams, protruding buttons,
and bulky trims that are placed in pressure areas, such as under the seat
or against the back, may cause the formation of pressure sores. Rough
fabrics that can abrade the skin should not be worn by those with sensi-
tive skin or limited body awareness. Clothing that binds the body does
not allow normal circulation, and tight elastic around the limbs can

cause swelling (Hoffman, 1979; Macarthy, 1973).

Clothing Acquisition

Numerous clothing problems are created because of the variety of
physical characteristics and the use of assistive devices among handi-
cappers. Since their needs are so diverse, the mass production of clothing
to satisfy all of these requirements is not feasible (Hallenbeck, 1966;
Newton, 1976). On a smaller scale, there are mail order businesses from
which handicappers can obtain specialized clothing.1However, few people
take advantage of these sources; many of the garments lack aesthetic
appeal, have an institutional look, and are prohibitively expensive

(Ahrbeck and Friend, 1976).

16

IThe modification of ready-made garments and commercial patterns may
be the most feasible method for handicappers to use in obtaining satis-
factory garments’ Numerous books and pamphlets, some published by coopera-
tive extension services and handicapper organizations, provide information
on purchasing and modifying apparel to accommodate physical characteris-
tics (Hotte, 1979; Yep, 1974). However, whether or not handicappers take
advantage of this information is questionable. None of the subjects in
Ewald's study (1975) were aware of or had used information sources con-
cerning clothing modifications for handicappers. Though some of the re-
spondents had difficulty with fasteners and were aware of pressure tape,
none had used itn (he majority of subjects wore ready-made garments as
they were purchased; few made alterations that were related to their
physical characteristics. Selective shopping was the chief method of
obtaining suitable clothing,

Because handicappers have become more visible and mobile in recent
years, there is a need for information about their current clothing
needs. Their increased mobility may have effected changes in the avail-
ability and quality of apparel designed to satisfy their physical require-

ments. Style changes may have also influenced their use of clothing.

Sources of Clothing

 

The physical characteristics and clothing selection problems of.
handicapper and elderly shoppers are varied. However, there is little
disagreement about preferred shopping facilities. In all of the studies
reviewed, department stores were most preferred for clothing purchases
(Dodge, 1962; Ewald, 1975; Rankin, 1966; Reich, 1979; Richards, 1971;
Shipley, 1961; Sindelair, 1969; Varner, 1967; Walker, 1972). Reasons in-

cluded the convenience of being able to make all purchases in one location

17

(Dodge, 1962; Rankin, 1966), the availability of a good selection,
and force of habit (Varner, 1967).

Specialty shops, stores selling only clothing, ranked second in
popularity in several studies (Rankin, 1966; Reich, 1979; Shipley, 1961;
Walker, 1972). The higher income group in Shipley's study (1961) preferred
specialty stores more than the lower income group. Some of the subjects
in Varner's study (1967) did not prefer these shops because of incon-
venience and lack of selection. Burnett (1964), Rankin (1966), Reich
(1979), and Walker (1972) found that many handicapper and elderly shop-
pers frequent both department and specialty stores.

Discount and variety stores were seldom indicated as preferred
shopping locations. The male subjects in Ewald's study (1975) were the
only group to favor discount stores to some degree. In Varner's study
(1967), older women avoided them because of inconvenience and poor selec-
tion. However, because discount stores have improved in selection and
popular appeal recently, current studies could reveal a change in
preference. Several discount chains are remodeling their stores to in-
clude smaller fixture, more easily read signage, wider aisles, better
traffic patterns, and less congested checkout areas. These modifications
reflect an effort to upgrade discount stores to resemble department
stores rather than bargain basements ("Discounter Puts on New Face,"
1978; "How Discounter Aims for Easily Shopped Stores," 1975).

Though thrift shops were not usually mentioned in studies, they
were popular with some groups. Fifty-one percent of the handicappers in
Reich's study (1979) sometimes shopped in these stores. In Ewald's study
(1975), respondents listed second-hand stores as a third choice, after

department and discount stores.

18

Mail order and phone shopping offer the most convenience to those
with limited mobility, but they present numerous problems (Bruck, 1978;
"Shopping by Mail Order," 1979). Consequently, most elderly shoppers were
Opposed to them. the main reasons for their discontent were the inability
to see and to try on merchandise before it was purchased (Dodge, 1958;
Varner, 1967). Many handicappers, though, considered mail and phone order
businesses viable sources of clothing. Fifty-seven percent of the consum-
ers in Reich's study (1979) sometimes ordered garments by mail, as did
twenty-five percent of the subjects in Tharp's study (1956). Seventy-six
percent of the disabled homemakers in Sindelair's study (1969) wanted
garments especially designed for their physical characteristics that
could be purchased either by mail order or from department stores. It is
possible that because elderly consumers had been accustomed to shopping
in stores in their youth, they found it difficult to accept the uncertain-
ty of mail and phone ordering. Handicappers, who have always experienced
accessibility problems when shopping in stores, may be more accustomed
to this method of acquiring clothing.

Few respondents in any of the studies used dressmakers or tailors as
major clothing sources. Home sewing was not an important means of cloth-
ing acquisition, either. Many subjects, however, did rely on alteration-
ists and home sewing for garment modifications (Ewald, 1975). With style
changes and rising clothing costs, there is a need for more current infor-
mation about the handicapper's reliance on these sources of clothing and
garment modification.

Few researchers have been concerned with the geographic location of
stores. Problems with accessibility and transportation may be related to

store area. Dodge (1958) found that elderly people preferred central,

19

downtown-type, shopping districts because of limited mobility and trans-
portation. The older women in Burnett's study (1964) also preferred
downtown areas to shopping centers. However, elderly, suburban women pre-
ferred malls to the downtown area because of the higher city crime rate
(Richards, 1971). These women were not mobility limited, as most drove
themselves to shopping malls.

Municipality size may also be related to selection, accessibility,
and shopping ease. Almost one-third of the small-town handicappers in
Tharp's study (1956) purchased clothing on out-of-town shopping trips.
Because local stores had a poor selection, some elderly women travelled to
suburban malls to shop for clothing (Richards, 1971). Though research has
been conducted on elderly shoppers living in small towns and rural areas,
similar studies have not been done with handicappers. More research is
needed in order to determine the clothing acquisition problems of this
group.

When purchasing clothing, many handicapper and elderly subjects
preferred to shop alone. Those wanting or needing advice and assistance
with purchases shopped with relatives or friends. Few respondents relied
on salesclerks for opinions and assistance (Ewald, 1975; Richards, 1971).
Advice was only sought from salespeople whom shoppers knew through long
association (Richards, 1971).

[Though much work has been done on the shapping habits of the elderly,
there is limited information available on handicapper consumers. More
research on store type, location, and related clothing selection, accessi-
liility, and transportation problems would make it possible to determine

how retailers can serve handicappers better.

20

Retail Management and Sales Personnel

In all of the studies cited above, handicapper and elderly shoppers
seldom depended upon the sales staff for assistance with clothing pur-
chases. More than a third of the handicappers in Reich's study (1979)
had difficulty when shopping because of negative attitudes and poor ser-
vice. Ewald (1975) also found that salespeople were "not willing to take
the time to help."1 Additionally, a small percentage of the elderly
women in Richard's study (1971) felt that sales clerks practiced age dis-
crimination. It could be inferred that lack of dependency upon the sales
staff for assistance could be a reaction to the ’1egative attitudes of
retail personnel toward handicapper and elderly consumers.

However, the lack of adequate service may be more complicated than
salespersons' unwillingness to assist handicappers. According to Albrecht
(1976), lack of knowledge about handicappers may be the reason.

Although the public has very positive attitudes
towards the physically disabled, these able-bodied
people have little concrete knowledge of the speci-
fic needs, realistic expectations, and capacities of
the physically disabled. In this study (of the atti-
tudes of helpers and non-helpers) attitudes were not
good predictors of knowledge or behavior...Attitude
change is not needed. Instead, the public needs to
be specifically educated about physical disability,
capability, and potential. They do not have the
necessary information upon which to act.2

This conclusion is supported by Bruck (1978). In a nationwide survey
of handicappers interested in consumer rights, all of the respondents
wished that salespeople had a better understanding of their needs.

However, actual studies with retailers are necessary to determine how

 

1Caroline Marie Ewald, Clothing Needs of Men with a Physical Disability
Wearin Braces or Artificial“Limbs, MasterTs’Thesis,_University of’
Arizona, 1975, p. 33?

2Gary L. Albrecht, Reducing Public Barriers of the Severely Handi-
capped, Chicago: Northwestern University, 1976, p. 25.

21

much exposure they have had to handicappers and their knowledge of that
group's shopping and purchasing problems.

Retail executives may also require additional information in order
to provide handicappers with better service and an appropriate selec-
tion of merchandise. Shipley (1961) compared the responses of older women
and clothing buyers. There was considerable divergency between what
buyers assumed that elderly customers wanted and actual preferences.
Eleven years later, Walker (1972) found the same lack of knowledge among
buyers. They were equally unaware of older women's preferences in style,
color.fabric, and garment type.

Buyers and other retail executives also seemed unconcerned about
tapping the elderly market. Two-thirds of the executives in Shipley's
(1961) study placed no emphasis on the elderly woman in advertisements;
only one-fourth felt that some garments in fashion shows were suitable
for older women.

Retailers' lack of knowledge and concern about the needs of the
older consumer may be related to the assumption that the elderly have low
potential market value. In Dodge's study (1958), retailers did not
think that the elderly warranted special attention. They were considered
a relatively low income group with little money available for clothing
purchases.

Bruck (1976) queried New York City retailers to determine what
services they provided for handicapper customers. They had a better opin-
ion of their services and facilities than did the handicapper and elderly
subjects in past studies. Most retailers said that their staffs were
sensitized to the needs of handicappers during regular training sessions.

All staff members were said to be willing to assist shoppers by reaching

22

and describing merchandise and would accommodate customers through any
necessary means. Though a small number of stores assigned assistants to
shop with handicappers, most retailers considered this unnecessary; the
salespeople were "fully trained to assist at all times."3

Many stores also extended special privileges to handicappers with
charge accounts. About half of the merchants allowed phone orders on
merchandise that ordinarily could not be purchased by phone. Most would
also hold sale merchandise for later purchase. Few stores, however, waived
regular delivery fees.

‘When asked whether they would be willing to consult with a handicap-
per to help improve shopping conditions, few retailers responded affirma-
tively. One response was negative. Most stores gave no response at all.

Because the sample in Bruck's (1976) study was small and homogeneous,
containing only department stores, generalizations from the results are
limited. Input from a larger sample containing several store types would
provide a broader overview of retailers' attitudes.

Several companies have implemented programs to aid handicapper con-
sumers. Some chain stores and major shopping center developers have
voluntarily developed internal guidelines for barrier-free construction.
Older malls have increased accessibility by providing curbside handicapper
parking, ramps, accessible entrances, and lower phones. Wheelchairs are
also available upon request.

In an effort to communicate with customers with aural characteris-

tics, one company has experimentally installed teletype ordering systems

 

3Lilly Bruck, Consumer Rights for Disabled Citizens, New York:
Department of Consumer Affairs, 1976, p. 54.

 

23

in some areas. Some malls provide sign language courses for which
employees volunteer. Department stores have participated in radio inter-
views concerning consumer rights and products for handicappers (Rothman,
1979). However, according to current studies, these improvements are
exceptional; there is still much to be done to improve conditions.
Recent publicity and legislation, increased accessibility, and
greater visibility of handicappers increase the need for research on
prevalent attitudes and problems. A simultaneous study of handicappers
and retailers would clarify how conditions affecting both groups have

changed.

Accessibility

Along with the social deterrants of attitude and understanding,
architectural barriers present some of the most formidable obstacles that
handicappers must overcome. Albrecht observed that "isolation produces a
lack of public awareness of the problems of the disabled and lack of
awareness translates into fewer architectural codes designed to produce
barrier-free environments."4

Though architects consider the maximum physical conditions that a
building must withstand, traditionally, they have not taken into account
the maximum physical extremes of the pepple who will use the building
(Leonard, 1978). As handicappers continue to make their needs known and
legislation supports them, architects will find it necessary to consider
hunan characteristics when designing buildings. Increased accessibility

benefits all who use a facility, not only the handicapper (Bowe, 1978;

Hollerith, 1978; Leonard, 1979).

 

4Albrecht, p. 26.

24

One of the first attempts to aid builders in making facilities more
accessible was made in 1961, when the American National Standards Associa-
tion (now the American National Standards Institute) first published
standards for accessibility. However, a 1967 study, conducted by the
National Commission on Architectural Barriers, concluded that builders
were not complying with the standards (Bowe, 1978).

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-480) made the ANSI
standards legally enforceable for all federally financed, public build-
ings. The administrator of the General Service Administration was given
the responsibility of promulgating the 1961 ANSI standards (Bowe, 1978).
Other federal legislation, including the Federal Highway Act of 1973 (P.L.
93-87), enables handicappers with mobility characteristics greater access
to pedestrian ways, further increasing accessibility.

State accessibility laws regulate the construction and modification
of facilities financed with funds provided by the state or its political
subdivisions (P.A. 177, 1975). New legislation also mandates that even
privately owned and financed buildings built after July 1974, or for which
remodeling costs succeed $10,000, also be made accessible (P.A. 190,
1974). In Michigan, several other laws regulating building accessibility,
public way access, and parking facilities are in force (P.A. l, 1966;

P.A. 8, 1973; P.A. 19, 1977; P.A. 88, 1978; and P.A. 132, 1978). The
Barrier Free Design Board of Michigan, created by Public Act 190 (1974),
has the responsibility of enforcing most of these laws and initiating
necessary modifications thereof. Problems with accessibility, though,
still exist. Not only are federal and state regulations sometimes by-
passed, buildings constructed before the legislation passed and not or

only slightly modified since may still be inaccessible (Bowe, 1978).

25

In order to enhance handicapper mobility, agencies throughout the
world now fund and publish accessibility guides to buildings in major
metropolitan areas (Howell, 1977). The information provided follows the
general format of state and federal laws--the availability of accessible
parking facilities, entrances, elevators, restrooms, telephones, drinking
fountains, etc. Data is available for a variety of buildings, including
food and clothing stores, theaters, and public buildings.

Though traffic flow patterns, fittings, and furnishings greatly affect
building accessibility, there is minimal legislation regulating these
factors. Information concerning internal accessibility is, therefore, not
available in the metrOpolitan accessibility guidebooks. Yet in retail
establishments, the type of equipment used and the arrangement of furnish-
ings can profoundly influence shopping ease.

Many factors are particularly important to store accessibility.

Door type can be problematic. Revolving doors, often found in department
stores, totally obstruct chair users and are difficult for those with
prostheses, slower reaction time, and reduced stamina or agility. Adja-
cent hinged doors are usually locked or have no exterior opening devices.
Hinged and automatic doors are easier for most people to use (Jones, 1978;
Wachter, 1976).

If doors in series, which are frequently found in discount stores,
are too close together, there is insufficient space for chair users and
persons with seeing-eye dogs to pass through one door and to open the
second safely. Pedestrians are sometimes hit by doors that swing unexpec-
tedly into the circulation space (Goldenson, 1978; Jones, 1978).

Circulation through the stores is complicated by limited access to

different levels. Steps are inaccessible to people in wheelchairs and

26

are troublesome to handicappers with other mobility characteristics.
Improperly designed handrails can also complicate passage for crutch
users, and for those with upper limb involvement, amputations, and diffi-
culties with balance (Jones, 1978; Jones and Catlin, 1978). Escalators are
accessible only to the able-bodied; they are impassible to chair users

and people with other mobility aids; they are also difficult for the
elderly and less agile. When properly designed, elevators provide handi-
cappers with safe, reliable passage (Jones, 1978; Wachter, 1976).

Floor finishes affect the mobility of people with several handicapper
characteristics. Ground surfaces should be slip-resistant, firm, stable,
and without loose edges or irregular joints. For people with lower limb
amputations, orthotics, and limited balance or coordination, minor level
changes can upset balance and cause falls. Chair users may find it diffi-
cult or painful to wheel over uneven surfaces; spasticity may even result
(Jones, 1978)._

Though carpeting is often used in clothing stores, it causes
numerous problems. Great effort is required for wheelchair users to pro-
pel themselves across carpeting, especially when it has underlayments or
thick pile. Static electricity is also generated while moving across
some carpeting. When a person with balance or agility characteristics,
who barely lifts his feet while walking, touches a doorknob or other sur-
face, the electric charge can be severe enough to cause him to fall
(Jones, 1978).

Aisles should be wide enough to allow the safe passage of wheelchair
and crutch users. Additional width is required at the ends of closed
aisles, where chair users must make complete turns in order to exit

(Jones, 1978).

27

For many handicappers, the location of merchandise is crucial to
shopping ease and safety. Because they usually lack trunk balance, wheel-
chair users find reaching difficult. Attempting to remove merchandise
from extremely high or low shelves and racks can cause unstable persons
to fall. Seated persons also have difficulty seeing elevated items and
observing sales transactions. Mirrors placed too high above the floor do
not enable chair users to see themselves well enough to make purchasing
decisions. Similar problems with reach and view are experienced by the
small in stature (Jones, 1978; Jones and Catlin, 1978).

Few researchers have investigated the features that contribute to
store accessibility. Reich (1979) queried handicappers and found that
they encounter obstacles both outside and inside of clothing stores. Out-
door problems experienced by fifty-five percent or more of the respondents
included inconvenient parking facilities, curbs, steps, and otherwise in-
accessible entrances. Inside the stores, fifty-six percent or more of the
respondents had difficulty with turnstiles, aisle spacing, traffic pat-
terns through the store, merchandise location, and fitting room size.
Difficulty in operating elevators was experienced by thirty-four percent
of the respondents. Other problems included the unavailability of rest
areas and inadequate restroom facilities.

Retailers, however, have a more optimistic view of their stores.
Bruck (1976) obtained information from several department and chain
stores in New York City. Executives at all of the companies surveyed said
that their entrances, aisles, and elevators were accessible. In all but
one store, retailers considered their fitting rooms large enough to
accommodate a wheelchair. However, they felt that fewer than half of the

stores had accessible restrooms. Problems with parking facilities were

28

also indicated for almost all of the businesses. Though the retailers
undoubtedly replied in good faith, the accuracy of some of the data is
questionable. No guidelines on proper measuring techniques were included
with the mailed-out questionnaires. In some instances, actual figures for
accessibility criteria were not given; retailers were simply asked
whether a fitting room was "accessible" and whether certain furnishings
were "within reach." Respondents, therefore, were allowed to be greatly
subjective in their observations.

Because past research focuses on opinion rather than measurement,
accurate information on interior store accessibility and actual shapping
conditions is limited. If retailers believe their stores to be accessible,
they will discount opposing claims by handicappers. In the absence of
concrete information about the factors contributing to store accessibility,
efforts to improve conditions within stores will be misdirected. An
accessibility study of actual store and shopping conditions will identify

the problems for which solutions must be found.

Summary

Handicappers encounter numerous obstacles in obtaining attractive,
functional clothing. Their characteristics modify physical abilities,
bodily functions, and appearance; the use of orthotic and prosthetic
devices places new demands on clothing and architecture.

In order to enhance self-esteem, handicappers need attractive cloth-
ing that is functional and easy to manipulate, allowing them to be inde-
pendent. Many handicappers, however, have difficulty with available
apparel. Because physical characteristics and assistive devices modify
body shape and posture, their clothing may be unattractive due to poor

fit and the unavailability of stylish clothing designed to meet special

29

needs. The greater movement that handicappers may exert in completing
everyday tasks and the use of assistive devices puts stress on garments,
creatinga need for increased durability. The frequent launderings necessary
because of drooling, incontinence, and soil from assistive devices also
decrease the life of apparel.

Clothing comfort is important to all handicapper groups. People with
limited strength and endurance require lightweight clothing. Especially
where there is limited body awareness, garments should be free of bulky
trims and findings, provide adequate warmth, and allow normal circulation.

Dressing and undressing are complicated by the presence of assistive
devices and by limited eye-hand coordination, endurance, balance, and
range of motion. These processes are inhibited by garments with small,
difficult to reach openings and that have awkward, closely-spaced fasteners.

The clothing available to handicappers may decrease freedom of move-
ment. People with orthotic and prosthetic devices require extra garment
ease in order to operate mobility devices and to move freely when body
supports are worn. Ready-made garments have few action features and may
restrict movement. Excessive fullness also impedes mobility.

The presence of some physical characteristics and the use of devices
intensifies the need for clothing safety. Loose or dangling garment
sections cause falls and are hazardous around sources of fire.

\Because of the variety of handicapper clothing requirements, the
mass production of specialized adaptive clothing is not considered feasi-
ble. Mail order businesses provide some specially designed clothing, but
it tends to be expensive and unattractive. The alteration of ready-made
garments and commercial patterns may be the most practical method by which

handicappers may obtain suitable,specialized clothing.

30

According to past research, handicapper and elderly shoppers pre-
ferred department and specialty stores for clothing purchases. Their
reasons included force of habit and the availability of a better selec-
tion. Few favored discount stores and mail order businesses. Garments were
seldom obtained through dressmakers, tailors, or home sewing.

Mobility-limited shoppers preferred downtown-type sh0pping areas.
However, suburban consumers thought that outlying malls were safer.
Because of the poor selection in local stores, some handicapper and
elderly shoppers living in small towns purchased clothing on out-of-town
shopping trips.

Many elderly consumers preferred to shop alone. Those requiring
assistance shopped with relatives or friends. Few handicappers or elderly
people relied on salesclerks for advice or assistance.

The subjects in several studies were dissatisfied with the service
that they received in stores. Salesclerks lacked either the knowledge
or willingness to assist them. However, retailers may simply be unaware of
the needs of handicappers and elderly consumers. Retailers could also be
unconcerned about these shoppers because of the assumption that their po-
tential market value is low. This attitude may be changing; many stores
have begun to extend special privileges to handicapper customers and have
begun to train salespeople to assist them more fully.

Recent legislation mandating the accessibility of parking facilities,
public ways, and buildings has enhanced the mobility of handicappers. But
because few standards apply to store interiors, handicappers still experi-
ence difficulty when shopping for clothing. Doors, circulation to different
store levels, the arrangement and height of furnishings, fitting rooms,

and customer conveniences are still problematic for people with some

31

physical characteristics and assistive devices. However, retailers may be
unaware of the factors contributing to store accessibility; many feel that

their stores are easily accessed by handicappers.

Determination of the Study

Though there have been numerous studies concerning the clothing
problems of handicappers and elderly persons, many questions remain un-
answered. Past researchers have concentrated on small, specialized
groups of handicappers. Information concerning the clothing and shopping
problems of handicappers with a variety of physical characteristics is
necessary in order to determine the needs of the majority.

There are few studies that are recent enough to reflect current
clothing requirements. It is necessary to determine what difficulties
handicappers encounter today and how they resolve them. Style changes
affect the utility of garments and may magnify or diminish problems with
appearance, durability, comfort, dressing ease, mobility, and safety.
The increased mobility and visibility of handicappers has created a need
for clothing that accommodates an active, rather than sedentary, life-
style. Handicappers' opinions on the appropriateness of clothing that is
currently available should be researched before making suggestions that
retailers modify their stock to satisfy customers with special needs.

Little research on store accessibility is available. The factors in-
fluencing store accessibility should be clarified before modifications
can be suggested to retailers. It is also necessary to investigate
current store accessibility in order to determine where problems lie and
how they can be rectified. In addition, accessibility may affect handi-
capper shopping practices as well as retailers' exposure to handicappers

and awareness of their clothing and shOpping concerns.

32

If retailers are to consider selling merchandise that will satisfy
special clothing requirements and to make their stores more accessible,
they must be cognizant of the needs of handicapper shoppers. Limited
information is available concerning retailers' awareness of handicappers
needs. A study that simultaneously compares handicappers' and retailers'
perceptions of clothing and accessibility problems would provide the
information necessary to develop an educational program for both groups.

The hypotheses were developed in an effort to satisfy the above concerns.

Statement of Hypotheses

 

1. Retailers will not be aware of the clothing
needs of handicappers.

2. Retailers will not be aware of the accessibility
needs identified by handicappers.

3. In stores identified as more accessible by the
accessibility checklist:

a. Retailers will be more aware of
handicapper clothing needs.

b. Retailers will be more aware of
handicapper accessibility problems.

4. Handicappers will say that they experience
difficulty in the use of available clothing
most of the time.

5. Handicappers will say that they experience
difficulty in obtaining suitable, fashionable
clothing most of the time.

6. Handicappers who sh0p alone will frequent stores
less often than those who shop with others, thus
relying on other sources of clothing acquisition.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

 

The purpose of this research was to determine the nature and degree
of handicapper clothing acquisition and shopping problems. It was neces-
sary to examine the responses of handicappers and retailers to questions
concerning clothing design and store accessibility. Additionally, survey-
ing stores for actual accessibility was imperative to understanding the
conditions that confront handicappers as they shop.

In order to test the hypotheses, three instruments were developed:

a questionnaire for handicappers, one for retailers, and a clothing store
accessibility checklist. The handicapper and retailer questionnaires con-
tained the same questions concerning accessibility and clothing problems;
as a result, direct comparisons between the responses of both groups

were possible. Analyses of variance were used to compare the responses

of handicappers and retailers in order to test hypotheses one and two.

The retail clothing store accessibility checklist was used to rate
individual stores; the results also provided an accessibility score for
each store, allowing them to be classified as more or less accessible.

In order to test hypothesis three, analyses of variance with planned
contrast were used to compare the responses of retailers in the more and
less accessible stores to items concerning clothing and store
accessibility.

The mean responses of handicappers to the clothing concern areas--

appearance, durability, comfort, dressing ease, fasteners, mobility, and

33

34

safety--were utilized in testing hypothesis four. In testing hypothesis
five, the mean response of handicappers to the question concerning the
ability to purchase suitable clothing was used. The chi square test was
necessary to determine the validity of hypothesis six.

This chapter discusses the population and sample, the development
of the instruments used in data collection, and the procedure used in

collecting the data.

Establishing the Study

 

Preliminary to establishing the direction of this research, infor-
mation was gathered from several sources. The review of literature pro-
vided the background for understanding handicapper clothing concerns and
general accessibility requirements. However, in order to investigate the
current situation, interviews with clothing and barrier-free design
specialists and with handicappers were necessary. Personal observations
were also instrumental in developing the study.

Information concerning contemporaneous handicapper clothing problems
was gathered from design specialists at the Clothing for People with
Special Needs Conference, sponsored by the University of Alabama (1979).
Handicappers themselves, who were contacted through local handicapper
agencies, shared information about their personal clothing needs,
shopping problems, and encounters with salespeople.

Because existing accessibility standards have limited appliCation
to many of the features found in clothing stores, interviews with acces-
sibility specialists were conducted. Eric Gentile, Deputy Director of
Michigan State University's Office of Programs for Handicappers and a
member of the Michigan Barrier-Free Design Board, provided information

concerning the application of state and federal accessibility codes to

35

stores and the development of methods of evaluation. Ken Laux, Director
of the Access Lansing project, and F. Duncan Case, Associate Professor of
Housing and Interiors at Michigan State University, also provided input
into the development of the Retail Clothing Store Accessibility
Checklist.

The researcher visited several stores on foot and in a wheelchair
in an effort to simulate the entire shopping process that handicappers
experience. Her activities included attempting to try on and purchase
clothing, with the purpose of observing staff attitudes and willingness
to assist handicapper shoppers. Conversations with retailers on these
and other occasions provided insight into staff awareness of handicapper

clothing and accessibility problems.

Sampling Techniques

 

Handicappers

In order to concentrate on handicappers with physical characteristics
that directly influenced clothing selection, people whose primary charac-
teristics were aural, visual, mental, emotional, or speech-related were
omitted from the sample. It was assumed that adults were more likely to
have control over their own wardrobes than minors; therefore, subjects
were required to be eighteen years of age or older.

The key informant approach was used to locate the sample (Yep and
Riggs, 1978). Lansing area handicapper agencies, serving people with
characteristics other than those listed above, were contacted and asked
to participate in the study. Since there are no listings for handicappers
other than agency mailing lists, this proved to be the easiest method

of identifying a sample.

36

Preliminary contact was made with a central, handicapper organiza-
tion. This agency provided a list of other organizations and their con-
tact persons. The project was explained to the contact persons by phone.
At that time, a commitment to participate in the study was sought. Ten
agencies, serving handicappers with a variety of physical characteris-
tics, agreed to take part (see Appendix C). But because of the confiden—
tiality of their membership, only two agencies would release their mail-
ing lists. The remaining organizations consented to address and send the
questionnaires, which were delivered to the agencies ready for mailing,
themselves. In most cases, though, the addressed envelopes were returned
to the researcher and mailed through the university postal service.

Agency personnel were asked to make an alphabetical list of adult
handicappers. Every other person on the list, which included both sexes,
was to receive a questionnaire. People with characteristics not under
consideration were omitted. For selecting respondents from agencies that
had released their mailing lists, the same sampling technique was used.
Instructions for selecting the subjects were given to the persons who
would carry out the process during the preliminary phone conversation
and again when the questionnaires were delivered. Because most agencies
had only approximate membership figures, all received extra question-
naires. After following the sampling directions, several agents went
through their lists again and sent the surplus questionnaires to people
who had not been selected but whom they knew would be interested in the
study. Persons from four of the ten agencies admitted to having done so.
According to them, this was done in an earnest effort to increase the

number of respondents.

37

There were no subsequent mailings of the handicapper questionnaire.
Without having the mailing lists, it was impossible to know which sub-
jects had not responded. It would have been an imposition to request
that the agencies do a second mailing, because all of the organizations

had small staffs.

Retailers

The sample of retailers contained only personnel from the stores
selected for the accessibility study. Within the specified store area,
the men's or women's clothing department, supervisors were asked to list
the names of all employees who assisted customers with purchases. After
the lists were alphabetized, the researcher randomly selected half of
the employees. Two alternates were also randomly selected, in case some
subjects did not complete the questionnaire. To aid in distribution, the
names of the selected employees were written on the questionnaires.

The supervisor of one store refused to supply the names of staff
members. Consequently, the researcher asked how many people were employed
in that department and made a blank list with the required number of
spaces, randomly selecting the numbers on the list. The supervisor then
alphabetized the names and placed them on the pre-numbered list;
questionnaires were distributed to the employees whose names appeared

next to the selected numbers.

Stores
Stores in central city and outlying areas were sampled in an effort
to determine whether location affected accessibility. Each of the two
groups was to contain eighteen stores: two men's, two women's and two

clothing specialty stores, six department stores, and six discount

38

stores. Differences in the accessibility of various types of stores
could also be evaluated.

Stores serving Lansing, Michigan and cities in the surrounding tri-
county area, composed of Ingham, Eaton, and Clinton counties, were
sampled. Stores within a ten-mile radius of Lansing were included in the
population for the central city sample. A list of the outlying cities
was obtained from the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, located
in Lansing. Within each county, all cities were alphabetized and randomly
selected until the required number of stores was acquired for the outlying
area sample.

Though a listing of stores selling clothing was sought from several
agencies, the commercial telephone directory proved to be the only
reasonably complete source. Stores of each type were randomly selected
from the appropriate section: under men's, women's, clothing, and depart-
ment store listings. Because the Lansing area phone book did not cantain
a section for discount stores, store names were obtained from Phelon's
Discount Stores Directory of Self-Service Department Stores (1977). The
stores were then located in the white pages of the phone book, alphabe-
tized, and randomly selected. When the list was completed, men's and
women's clothing departments were alternately selected from clothing
specialty, department, and discount stores.

Most stores listed in the Lansing telephone directory were within
a ten-mile radius of the city. Those that were not were placed in the
population of outlying area stores. All of the stores listed in phone
books of the other cities selected for the sample were considered part
of the outlying store population. Many telephone directories contained

stores located outside of the tri-county area. However, regardless of

39

their location, these stores served the selected cities because of their
proximity. Though the entire store sample contained more than one branch
of some chain stores, individual stores were listed only once.

Most retailers were extremely cooperative. However, one inter-
national discount chain refused to participate in the study. As a result,
there were only four discount centers included in the sample. These stores

were all branches of the same chain.

Development of the Instruments

 

Handicapper Questionnaire

Information for the list of handicapper clothing problems was ob-
tained through interviews and the review of literature. This list, con-
taining 144 items, was sent to 24 people for validation. In order to get
an accurate account of current clothing problems, the validators included
handitapper clOthing experts, occupational therapists, rehabilitation
professionals, and handicappers employed by agencies serving handicappers.
The input of individual handicappers was not sought at this time; a
broad view of the clothing problems of many handicappers rather than the
personal concerns of a few people was necessary. Respondents were divided
into two groups, clothing specialists and professionals in other disci-
plines. The validators were asked to classify each item either as a
valid clothing concern, not as a valid clothing concern, or as a clothing
concern of which they were not aware (see Appendix A).

From the validated clothing concerns checklist, another list was
compiled. It contained only the items that were selected either by 50
percent or more members of both groups or by at least 50 percent of one
group, with some approval by the other group. The research staff then

scaled down the remaining items to include clothing concerns encountered

40

only by handicappers. Some statements were also combined. Containing
only 40 clothing problems, the final list was considered to be concise
and of reasonable length.

The questions concerning accessibility, following the format of the
Retail Clothing Store Accessibility Checklist, were designed to allow
each area of the store to be considered separately. Parking facilities,
the building approach and entrance, circulation through the store,
clothing department furnishings, and fitting rooms all affect accessi-
bility. Having separate responses for each item made it possible to
determine which store areas needed modification. Both the lists of
clothing concerns and accessibility problems were based on a five point
Likert scale, ranging from "always a problem" to “never a problem." This
system enabled means to be computed for all items.

Along with demographic data on sex, age, and education, handicappers
were asked to respond to questions concerning the onset and nature of
their physical characteristics_and which prosthetic and orthotic devices
they used. This information was useful in determining which characteris-
tics and devices were responsible for various clothing and accessibility
requirements. Respondents were not queried about their specific medical
conditions, such as cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis. The physical
characteristics or effects of the condition, which are similar in many
cases, are more important in determining which clothing and accessibility
concerns the individual will experience (Hallenbeck, 1966; Hollerith,
1976; Yep, 1976). Questions concerning assistance with dressing and shop-
ping, preferred stores and shopping locations, transportation, and geo-

graphic area provided insight into general handicapper shapping practices.

41

An explanation of the study and its purpose appeared on the front
page of the questionnaire, which was arranged as an eight-page booklet.
Because some of the agencies that assisted with the project had members
who were non-handicappers or were not adults, an attempt was made to
select out these people. Respondents were asked to indicate their handi-
capper and adult status in the first two questions. Those fulfilling
neither criterion were instructed not to complete the questionnaire. In
case there were questions, the researcher's telephone numbers were pro-
vided. Room for comments was available at the end of the booklet (see

Appendix B).

Retailer Questionnaire

In order to make direct comparisons between the responses of
handicappers and retailers, the retailer questionnaire contained the
same questions about clothing and accessibility. Retailers were also
asked about their experience in working with handicapper customers,
whether they had received training in assisting handicappers, and whether
they felt that such training was necessary. Questions concerning the
existence of a sizable handicapper market and its potential value were
included to aid in determining the receptiveness of retailers to the
projected, community education program.

Because there are a variety of employees who assist customers,
respondents were asked to indicate their positions, years of clothing
retail experience, and whether they worked full or part time. All of
these factors could influence experience with handicapper shoppers and
awareness of their needs. Demographic data on age, sex, and education

were also requested.

42

The retailer questionnaire had the same booklet format as that for
handicappers. Instructions and phone numbers were similarly provided on
the cover. Room for comments appeared on the back page of the booklet

(see Appendix B).

Retail Clothing Store Accessibility Checklist

The review of literature resulting in the development of the
accessibility checklist was extremely broad. It was necessary to consult
consumer guides for handicappers (Bruck, 1976; Hale, 1979), metropolitan
accessibility guidebooks (Howell, 1977), state and federal accessibility
codes, human engineering guidelines (Van Cott and Kincade, 1972), and
accessibility surveys developed by other agencies. Barrier-free design
specialists were instrumental in relating information to shopping facili-
ties and devising methods of evaluation. Visits to stores in a variety of
surroundings were made to assure that as many shapping situations as
possible were considered.

The accessibility checklist was divided into sections relating to
the areas that a person enters during a shopping trip. Parking and public
way access, the approach and entrance to the store or mall, movement
(through the store or mall, access to levels within the building, customer
conveniences, and all features within the clothing department were evalu-
ated separately. This was important in determining where accessibility
problems lay.

In order to rate stores on accessibility, a point system was devised.
Each question contained responses for the range of conditions that could
be found in shopping facilities; items were arranged in ascending order,
from the least to the most accessible. Points were assigned to each

response, with the most accessible item receiving the highest number of

43

points. Some items, such as ramps and elevators, had qualifying condi-
tions; their worth was determined not only by their presence but by all
of the features contributing to their accessibility.

All store locations, such as auto strip developments, enclosed
malls, and downtown-type shopping areas, were considered equally acces-
sible; all were potentially worth the same number of points. However,
all features relating to movement through the shopping area or facility
had to be accessible in order for the store to obtain the highest
rating. Every store received a score for each section of the questionnaire
as well as a total accessibility rating. This system enabled stores to be
classified as more and less accessible for purposes of analysis.

All questions on the accessibility checklist were written to allow
quick responses. It was unnecessary to record any measurements; exact
figures were not needed for the analysis. Store features either met

certain criteria or they did not (see Appendix B).

Pretest
Handicappers

For the pretest, questionnaires were distributed to people attend-
ing the open house of a handicapper service agency and to those attend-
ing a meeting of a handicapper organization. Thirteen people, with
numerous physical characteristics and assistive devices, returned the
questionnaires. A variety of educational levels were also represented.
Most respondents completed the questionnaires immediately. Discussion
and comments were invited.

As a result of the pretest, the lists of physical characteristics
and devices were enlarged to include items written in by respondents.

Many subjects commented that some questions seemed similar or related;

44

for brevity, several questions were combined, reducing the length of the
questionnaire. Much of the language was simplified, and technical terms
were avoided. On the advice of handicappers with visual as well as physi-
cal characteristics, a decision to reduce the size of the print, and
therefore, the size of the questionnaire, was reversed. For some people,

reading smaller print would have been difficult or impossible.

Retailers

Five clothing store employees, working in several capacities,
participated in the pretest. Because job level and responsibility would
affect the reSpondent's viewpoint, a question concerning position was
added to the questionnaire. Some of the retailers related their experi-
ences with handicapper shoppers through oral and written comments. Since
an awareness of handicapper clothing problems seemed to be enhanced
through contact with that group, the final instrument contained a question
about the physical characteristic of or the devices used by the handicap-
.pers assisted. Comments also revealed an awareness of accessibility prob-
lems. As a result, the retailer questionnaire contained the same accessi-
bility questions that were asked of handicappers. Originally, store

accessibility was given only brief consideration in this instrument.

Stores
TWO of the stores not selected for the sample were used in the
pretest. In an effort to test the checklist's utility for different
store types and locations, a downtown department store and a women's
store in an enclosed mall were surveyed. The pretest resulted in the re-
evaluation of some accessibility standards and the refinement of measur-

' ing techniques. Some important accessibility considerations that had

45

been overlooked were recognized during the preliminary surveys; these

were added to the final checklist.

Procedure
Handicappers

The questionnaires were mailed in white, Michigan State University,
business envelopes, along with consent forms and self-addressed, return
postage envelopes. Recipients who were either non-handicappers or were
under the age of eighteen were asked to return the booklet uncompleted.
This step aided the staff in keeping track of all mailed-out question-
naires. In three cases, respondents called the researcher for assistance
in completing the questionnaire. Two handicappers answered all items by
phone; one responded during a nursing home visit. Subjects queried by
phone returned their consent forms by mail.

Six hundred questionnaires were mailed over a one-month period.
Sixty-nine of these were mailed by the researcher. The time span over
which the mailing occurred reflects the different amounts of time that
organizations needed to complete the task. Most of the questionnaires
were returned within one month. Five others arrived after another month.
The last questionnaire, which arrived three months later, was too late
to be used in the study.

Of the 169 questionnaires returned, only 133 were usable; this
represents a 22 percent return rate. Thirty-three questionnaires were
answered by people with characteristics not under consideration and were
omitted. The remaining questionnaires were undeliverable and were returned

by the post office.

46

Retailers

Questionnaires and consent forms were taken to the stores at the
same time that the accessibility checklist was to be completed. The
project was briefly explained to the staff person in charge, allowing
him to ask questions and review the booklet. Though managers usually
' explained and distributed the questionnaires, the researcher was aSked
to do so on a few occasions. Subjects were asked to complete the booklets
and have them ready when the researcher returned. The questionnaires
were collected in three days to two weeks, depending on the retailer's
schedule and the store's proximity to Lansing. Some respondents completed
the booklets and returned them to the researcher on the same visit.

0f the approximately 134 questionnaires distributed, 124 were re-
turned, representing a 92.5 percent return rate. Only four stores did

not return the required number of questionnaires.

Stores

Stores were initially contacted by mail. The letter contained a
brief description of the study, which was thoroughly explained during a
follow-up phone call. At this time, an agreement to participate in the
study was sought, and arrangements were made for a store visitation. In
the interest of time, stores selected later in the study did not receive
letters but were only contacted by phone (see Appendix A).

During the first visit to the store, the Retail Clothing Store
Accessibility Checklist.was explained and shown to the contact person.
The explanation, however, did not include detailed information about
accessibility requirements unless it was requested. This was an effort

to avoid influencing those persons completing the retailer questionnaire.

47

Several simple measuring devices, which were approved by the barrier-
free design specialists, were used in completing the survey. A folding,
72 inch yardstick was needed to measure doorways, aisles, racks, counter
heights, etc. Its variable size made it versatile for measuring items of
all sizes. In order to measure the pounds of pull needed to open doors,

a pull gauge was utilized. It measured up to 12.5 pounds or six kilograms
of pull, which was more than sufficient for this purpose. In some in-
stances, the gauge's hook was too small to attach to the door handle. A
nylon cord that had been tied into a circle was wrapped around the handle
and then attached to the hook. The gradients of slopes and ramps were
measured with a paper gauge to which a free-swinging pencil was attached.
This instrument measured gradients of more than one unit in nine (e.g.,

a one-inch increase in height for every nine inches of length) to less
than one unit in 15. The researcher took the necessary measurements and
completed all surveys.

TWenty-eight of the original 36 stores contacted participated in
the study. Because one retail chain refused to cooperate, the sample is
short by eight discount stores; there were no other discount centers in
the population to replace them. Though the original plan was to sample
an equal number of men's and women's clothing retailers, changes in the
projected sample size resulted in the surveying of 15 men’s and 13
women's departments and/or stores.

The surveys were conducted over a two-month period because of
weather conditions and.the reluctance of stores to participate in the
study during the Christmas holiday season. However, all stores were sur-
veyed when they were in similar condition; they were either stocked with

pre-holiday merchandise or post-holiday sale goods.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Handicappers
General Characteristics

The handicapper sample contained 132 subjects, 44.7 percent of whom
were male and 49.2 percent of whom were female; 6.1 percent gave no re-
sponse. Their ages ranged from 18-19 years to 75 years and over. However,
most respondents were aged 25 to 54 years, with a modal age group of
35-44 years. Handicappers also had a variety of educational attainments,
from less than eighth grade to advanced degrees. High school or equivalent
was the modal educational level, representing 38.6 percent of the respon-
dents. Other large groups had some college or business school, 22.7 per-
cent, and had received four year college degrees, 17.4 percent. More than
half of the subjects, 54.5 percent, lived in cities; 23.5 percent resided
in small towns and 16.9 percent in rural areas.

Most handicapper characteristics, 62.9 percent, were acquired during
adulthood; others, 21.2 percent, were present at birth, and 12.9 percent
developed during childhood. All of the physical characteristics under
consideration were represented in the sample. The largest numbers of re-
spondents experienced limited balance, strength, large-scale motor move-
ment, and resistance to movement. Only one with dwarfism responded.
Almost every subject had more than one physical characteristic, some with
as many as thirteen. In the "other" category, respondents listed diffi-
culties with ambulation, taste, smell, speech, and reading ability.

Among the medical conditions specified in open response were multiple

48

49

sclerosis, cerebral palsy, polio, stroke, and arthritis. Some subjects
commented that they sustained several characteristics intermittently
(see Table 1).

Numerous devices were used by the respondents. The majority of sub-
jects, 57.6 percent, were wheelchair users. Canes, walkers, leg braces,
and crutches were also utilized by many peOple. None of the subjects had
an artificial, upper limb. Devices specified in open reSponse included an
artificial knee joint and a drop-foot brace (see Table 2). In most in-
stances, more than one orthosis or prosthesis was used; some subjects
utilized several devices, either concurrently or on different occasions,
depending on their activities and condition (see Table 3). People with
orthpaedic and mobility aids also experienced a variety of physical
characteristics (see Table 4).

Most of the handicappers sampled, 60.6 percent, dressed independently.
Only 17.4 percent of the respondents required an assistant, and 16.7 per-
cent were completely dressed by another person. Almost half of the sub-
jects, 49.2 percent, selected their own garments. Seventeen percent
shopped with the help of a spouse, and 9.1 percent shopped with a rela-
tive. Among the 13 percent of handicappers whose clothing was selected
by a spouse, 75 percent were men.

As in past research, department stores were most often selected by
handicappers for clothing purchases. Specialty stores, including shops
selling clothing for men, women, or both, were second in popularity.
Discount stores were third in preference; this finding is contrary to
earlier research, in which discount stores were seldom preferred. Six of
the 10 people with motorized scooters favored these stores; among wheel-

chair users, discount centers were the second choice after department

Table 1. Distribution of Physical Characteristics by Sex (N=132)a

 

 

Physical Characteristic Males Females Total
Resistance to Movement 26 29 55
(47.3%) (52.7%)
Limited Large-Scale Movement 32 4O 72
(44.4%) (55.6%)
Limited Small Motor 20 24 44
Movements (44.5%) (54.5%)
Limited Complex Motor 32 31 63
Movements (50.8%) (49.2%)
Decreased Body Awareness 23 36 59
(39.0%) (61.0%)
Limited Balance 38 49 87
(43.7%) (56.3%)
Limited Strength/Endurance 33 45 78
(42.3%) (57.7%)
Incontinence 19 28 47
(40.4%) (59.6%)
Ostomy/Colostomy 9 5 14
(64.3%) (25.7%)
Decreased Vision 16 21 37
(43.2%) (56.8%)
Decreased Hearing 9 7 16
(56.3%) (43.8%)
Dwarfism 1 1
(100.0%) .
Paraplegia 13 18 31
(41.9%) (58.1%)
Quadriplegia 9 8 17
(52.9%) (47.1%)

Table 1 (cont'd.)

50a

 

 

Physical Characteristic Males Females Total

Hemiplegia 12 9 21
(57.1%) (42.9%)

Modified Body Shape 4 8 12
(33.3%) (66.6%)

Other 6 9 15
(40.0%) (60.0%)

None 2 3 5
(40.0%) (60.0%)

aRespondents reported more than one physical characteristic

Table 2. Distribution of Devices by Sex (N=132)a

 

 

Assistive Device Males Females Total

Crutches ll 7 18
(61.1%) (38.9%)

Walker 10 16 26
(38.5%) (61.5%)

Cane 15 23 38
(39.5%) (60.5%)

Wheelchair 33 4O 73
(45.2%) (54.8%)

Motorized Scooter 2 7 9
(22.2%) (77.8%)

Leg Brace(s) 13 8 21
(61.9%) (38.1%)

Arm Brace(s) 1 2 3
(33.3%) (66.7%)

Body Brace l l 2
(50.0%) (50.0%)

Back Brace/Corset 7 4 11
(63.6%) (36.4%)

Wrist/Hand Splint 3 2 5
(60.0%) (40.0%)

Artificial Lower Limb l O 1
(100.0%)

Other 5 3 8
(62.5%) (37.5%)

None 9 7 16
(56.3%) (43.8%)

aRespondents reported the use of more than one device

. 52

ouN>uu N’s» mcvmz Npumnaam paucpe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Amkup>mo cmguo
o N 45.4 cage; .e.e.e.ee<
N o N Nee_am eee=\em_ez
N o e __ eeeeN seem
N o o _ N Nemeeo\eeeeN seem
o p N o o N Amveeeem ee<
o o wN o N N _N Amveeeem Nee
_ _ _ N _ o N N eeeeeeN eeNNeeeez
N N_ N _ N N _ N NN eNNeepeeez
N. N N o p _ o o . NN eeeo
N NN e N o o o N _ _ NN cox—e:
e N N, _ __ o N N N P N N, Neeeeeeu
M 3 M S .J. V 8 38 SM .luv 00 a : 00>
nqm.we?mm.-e- 2.
a .r. 1.J g 8 a U1. J1: DJ 3
J 3 3|: J J a 1.8 .4/ l. a a
u. 42 n. P J J H .13
U a 3 3 9 D. D. I21...
1.. D. 9 a 3 3 U “.9
4 Nu. nu .. an “e ..
ANNNqu Nee.>ea e_a_e_=z ee em: .N epeee

53

332.3322... .322: N: 93.83.. No.3 NN £2.29... «a: 9.- 3....— Noxo. .2622... 5... 3823.9

e.NN..N.eNeNNe N.NN N..s NNNNNNNN .NNNNN

3.3.. 9.8 :2: 95.. No «N9 2» NE. 9332.39.52“. :23... 28 .35 EN: v3.3a! 3833.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N N N . N N N N N N N N. .28
N . N N . N . N. . . N N. SEN Nee. 3:3.
N N . . N N . N. N. N . .N 38.28..
. N N . N . . N. N N N N. £8.23...
. N N N . N N NN N N N .N 28.9.:
N N N . N N N NN N. N N NN :2... 82.58
. N N N . N . N. . . N N. NSNNNZNNNBNNN
N N N N . N N NN N. N N .NN 855.5%.
3:235
N N N . N N. N NN NN NN .. NN 3.3.8 8......
N N N N N N. N NN .N N. N NN 322...... $8 329.93
accesses
N N N . -. N. N NN N. N. N NN .33. 5.9.8 82...:
Nemeo>ot
N N N . N N N N N. .. N NN .83. ..N...N 3......
N¢¢§N>oz
N N N N N N. N NN .N NN N. NN 2.8.48: 8......
N N N N . N. N NN NN N. N NN .553: 8 8556..
m Wm M. m M W M 3W m n. m m. M .- 932,339.29 p332;
a Is u x. .A m o a w I. .... a
J u 1. .- 8 a n H. I. 3 m 3
59/ 19 a a J J 3 J .3
m m u u a a .. m N u
M w a u i... u. u
a I 6 6

NANN..zv Nou.>oa No 0N: N: NN.NN.NoNuNNN;u .NN.NNNN .N ope.»

54

stores. Few respondents shopped for clothing through mail order
businesses. Only one subject, a wheelchair user, employed a dressmaker
or tailor as a major clothing source (see Table 5).

Enclosed malls were the most preferred shopping location and were
selected by 61.4 percent of the subjects. Auto strip developments were
chosen by 15.2 percent of the respondents. Downtown-type shopping areas
were third in popularity (see Table 6). Whether they lived in cities,
small towns, or rural areas, most handicappers, 78 percent, shopped in
urban stores (see Table 7).

Public transportation was not an important means of reaching shop-
ping areas. On shopping trips, 49.2 percent of the handicappers were
driven by a spouse, relative or friend. Another 31.1 percent drove them-
selves. Though 12 of the 18 people with crutches drove themselves to
shopping centers, the majority of subjects who used other devices were
driven by someone else. Three of the 10 respondents with motorized
scooters and one fourth of the 76 wheelchair users also provided
their own transportation. Only 5.3 percent of the total subjects used
regular, public transportation, and 3 percent depended on public, demand-

response vehicles.

Accessibility Concerns
The handicapper's limited mobility because of inadequate transpor-
tational facilities has been the subject of much concern (Bowe, 1978;
Hale, 1979). In this study, however, transportation to and from stores
was seldom a problem for most respondents. On a five point scale, with
a rating of five representing difficulty all of the time, the group mean
for transportation problems was 2.14. While 6.1 percent of the subjects

experienced difficulty all of the time, 43.9 percent never did.

55

Table 5. Handicapper Clothing Sources (N=l32)

 

 

Clothing Source Frequency Percentage
Clothing Specialty Stores 45 34.1
Men's (17) (12.9)
Women's (15) (11.4)
Men's and Women's (13) (9.8)
Department Store 47 35.6
Discount Store 21 15.9
From Fabric Store as 4 3.0
Pattern and Fabric
Mail Order Catalogue 5 3.8
Custom Tailor/Dressmaker l .8
Other 2 1.5
No Response 7 5.3

Total 132 100.0

56

Table 6. Shopping Locations Preferred by Handicappers (N=l32)

 

 

Shopping Location Frequency Percentage
Auto Strip Development 20 15.2
Concentrated Retail Area 11 8.3
Open Mall 5 3.8
Enclosed Mall 81 61.4
No Response 15 11.4

Total 132 100.0

Table 7.

57

Shopping Areas Preferred by Handicappers (N=132)

 

Home Location

Shopping Area

 

 

 

No
City Town Response Total
City 67 2 3 72
(50.8%) (1.5%) (2.3%) (54.5%)
Town 23 8 O 31
(17.4%) (6.1%) (23.5%)
Rural 13 6 2 21
(9.8%) (4.5%) (1.5%) (15.9%)
No Response 0 O 8 8
(6.1%) (6.1%)
Total 103 16 13 132
(78.0%) (12.1%) (9.8%) (100.0%)

58

Transportation was most often a problem for respondents who used arm
braces, body braces, wrist or hand splints, and artificial, lower limbs
(see Table 8). Though some of these devices alone may not be sufficient
to affect mobility, other aids used by these same people may have in-
hibited their use of transportation (see Tables 3 and 9).

Gaining access to stores was problematic for many handicappers.
Lack of accessible parking facilities, entrances, pathways, and means of
circulation to different store levels was either frequently or always a
problem for 28 percent of the subjects and always difficult for 5.3
percent. Respondents with body braces reported that they always had
trouble accessing stores. However, 18.2 percent of the sample seldom had
accessibility problems, and an equal percentage of people never did. The
group mean for access to stores was 2.76.

For the largest group of subjects, 31.1 percent, difficulty in shap-
ping because of floor coverings, steps, and furniture arrangements was
frequently a problem; for 9.1 percent, circulating through stores was
always laborious. As a group, people with arm braces had the most diffi-
culty. The majority of respondents who were seldom or never inconven-
ienced by store traffic patterns had either no physical characteristics
or no mobility devices. The group mean for difficulty in moving through
the store or clothing department was 3.08.

Shopping difficulty because of the inability to reach or see mer-
chandise was experienced frequently by 20.5 percent of the respondents
and always by 13.6 percent. Those having problems most often used motor-
ized scooters, arm braces, body braces, and splints. People with almost
all of the physical characteristics and with most of the devices listed

encountered problems at least some of the time (see Table 10). Handicappers

Table 8. Handicapper Accessibility Concerns (N=132)

 

 

Accessibility Concern n Mean St. Deviation Mode

Transportation 118 2.14 1.34 1.00

Access to Store 116 2.76 1.22 3.00

Difficulty in Moving 119 3.08 1.22 4.00
Through Store

Difficulty in 115 2.98 1.35 3.00‘:
Shopping 4.00

Fitting Room 112 3.06 1.65 1.00
Accessibility

Inability to Try on 119 2.92 1.55 1.00
Garments

aTotal subjects answering this question

0
always a problem

cBimodal distribution

Means were computed on a scale of l.O=never a problem to 5.0=

6C)

Ne..e.see NNNNNNNNN

50—NNNN N NN53NN . o.m NN :oNNoNN N Nose: - o.. Ne o.NuN N :o vouaasou .caoxa

825.. N2: 95...: 383:... .33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an. M3 M3 nu" a...“ m”. e .5.
.3 mm. mm. .NN. ”MUM mu” . .2...
80.. 8.... 0%.N 8:... 89..” 8:5 . 6.... N26.— .2829.‘
”wHN NL~N wwnN “mHN Nh~N ”MUN N NN..NN NNNNNNN..N
"MUM "an" “MUM ”Mun ”Mun ”MUM —— coasou\ou-+n dung
”MUN ohwm ohm. ”mun NLNN ”Mun u ounce use:
”an" Nh~N “MUN NhNN NMNN “WHN N .NNNLN .NN
”Mum ”MUM ”Mum "MUM ”MUM ”Mn” .N Non-en no.
”WU” ”wwN. meN “mm” ”mm” ”Mn” N .NNNNNN NNN.LNNN:
.3 mm. mm. m”. an. M3 2 5.5...
m”. a“... a“. .3 MM”. “.3 a .a
w... NM”. MM“. .3 a... "K e 5....
”MUM MAM“ ”mm” "mm” “MUM IMMMH” o. Nugouagu
ucNgNo.u cc NN. NNN.NN.NNNNN< NN.:u.NN.o ocean ugon NoNNNNNoNNNNN.
N. N....N.e_ NNNN Ne.NN.N NN.NNeeN NNNeee. Ne.se: e. NNNeeN
c. ha—suNNNNQ
Nccoucou Nu...a.NNuuu< a: ou.>No

 

.Nanz. Ncsuucou Nu...aNNNouu< A; moo—>99

.o 3...—

€51

Table l0. Physical Characteristics by Accessibility Concerns (N-l32)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Physical Characteristic na Accessibility Concerns
Access to magifizgn Shopping Fitting Roan 33mg:
Transportation Store Store Difficulty Accessibility Clothing
~mwuwmmm s igfi ifi ifi a: $3 i?
“m4 “rm-Scale "Mm” 72 $32 {$2 iii; 13:33 $23; $113
Limited Small Movemnnts 44 §3§2 fi-fig ' , :23: ?:g} :23: #:23
WW We" MW" 63 $3? $233 {13 $232 i153 {2;
“mm“ 3°“! MW” 59 $32 €213 if? i232; izéé €22
“W“ W“ 87 izil $13 iz‘z’? i3? itES it?
Limited Strength/Endurance 78 :3 $3? ii}: ill-u its $22
“Wm“ ° ‘7 i223 if: izifi $3? {22 {£3
“WWW” " 3233 2:33 ’1" i133 €33 i3?
“mm ‘" "m" 37 $233 $239 {$3 izéé $233 $22;
“mm *" WW ‘6 $28 33 13:9; 38 $2? #528
n_.,,igm 1 1130 lino 3130 1290 1230 5190
"mm“ 3' €33 ‘333 i232, i3} {23 #23;
”WW“ ‘7 i233 3.233 3:32 #23} i233 ti?
WW“ 2* i3: $223 {32 $33 i3? $23
“We" 3°“! SW ‘2 if? 3:32 323‘; i222 ‘233 i229
0"” '5 $233 ii? ir‘a’l’ 3% i233. {2%
"m 5 2:38 33 iii izli’ i??? if?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Total subjects with this characteristic
”khan. mooted on a scale of l.0 - never a,problem to 5.0 - always a problem
“Standard deviation

62

who seldom had trouble with the location of merchandise included hemi-
plegics and people with either no physical characteristics or character-
istics other than those listed. Subjects who used crutches, canes, leg
braces, artificial lower limbs, and who had either no devices or used
aids other than those listed also reported infrequent problems. For
shopping difficulty, the group mean was 2.98.

For respondents with many orthotic and prosthetic devices, fitting
rooms were inaccessible. Problems were always experienced by subjects
with arm braces, body braces, and splints. Including these and other de-
vices and characteristics, 24.2 percent of the sample had difficulty with
fitting rooms all of the time. Another 17.4 percent had frequent prob-
lems; many of these people used motorized scooters and back braces. Sub—
jects with all other mobility and orthopaedic aids found dressing areas
inaccessible at least some of the time; people with canes and artificial
lower limbs were the exceptions. Respondents with all physical character-
istics, except decreased hearing or vision, dwarfism, hemiplegia, and other,
unlisted characteristics encountered accessibility problems with fitting
rooms sometimes or more frequently. Ostomates and subjects with modified
body shapes had trouble most often. However, the remaining percentage of
subjects, 27.3 percent, reported no problems with fitting rooms.

Though one fourth of the respondents never had difficulty in trying
on garments in the store, 21.2 percent always had problems. Another l5.2
percent were frequently unable to try on garments. Subjects having the
most trouble were people who experienced hemiplegia and dwarfism and
those who used arm braces, body braces, and splints. Again, it should be
noted that although some physical characteristics and devices seem unlikely
to cause accessibility problems, other mobility devices, such as wheel-

chairs, used by the same subjects may have been the cause of difficulty.

63

Clothing Concerns

Contrary to past research, the handicappers in this study experienced
little difficulty with clothing. Means for all clothing concerns were
below 2.00, indicating that there were seldom problems with available
garments (see Table ll). Respondents were satisfied with the appearance
of their clothing, regardless of their physical characteristics or use of
devices. However, the subjects with arm braces, body braces, and splints
had difficulty with clothing attractiveness at least sometimes. Though
clothing durability was frequently a problem for the two respondents with
body braces, it was seldom a concern for the majority of handicappers.

The only subjects for whom garment comfort was sometimes problematic were
those who used arm or body braces (see Table l2).

Dressing was seldom difficult for subjects with all physical charac- .
teristics. However, the three subjects who used arm braces and the five
with splints said that they had problems sometimes. Frequent difficulty
was experienced by pe0ple who wore body braces. Though fasteners were
seldom problematic for subjects with most physical characteristics, they
were sometimes troublesome for the 44 respondents with limited, complex
motor movement (see Table l3). Those who used motorized scooters, splints,
and body braces also reported that they had difficulty with fasteners
some of the time.

Clothing seldom inhibited the movement of respondents with all
physical characteristics and almost all devices. Subjects using arm or
body braces, and splints sometimes found clothing restrictive. Although
garment safety was infrequently a concern for most, it was sometimes a
problem for those with arm braces and frequently for the ll subjects who

wore back braces or corsets. The only clothing concern to be experienced

Table ll. Handicapper Clothing and Shopping Concerns (N=132)

64

 

b

 

Clothing Concern n Mean St. Deviation Mode
Appearance l32 l.67 .36 l.00
Durability l32 1.82 .40 l.00
Comfort 132 l.77 .3l l.00
Dressing Ease l32 l.8l .43 l.00
Fasteners l32 l.9l .28 l.00
Movement l32 l.82 .25 1.00
Safety 132 l.84 .21 1.00 C
2.00
Ability to Purchase ll9 3.40 .l5 3.00
Suitable Clothing
Need for Alterations l23 3.00 .37 2.00
Helpfulness of Staff ll4 2.99 .54 l.00

aTotal subjects answering this question

bMeans were computed on a scale of l.O=never a problem to 5.0=

always a problem

cBimodal Distribution

65

 

 

 

 

 

.=5.:oc: c wxe3_o n

 

 

o.m o. ao_cc.: a cw>oc u

.cc.uu_>oe vccccuumo

9.. 3 23m a cc “.3398“. .53...

.oo_>ov mwza o=_m= muuonaam .aaopc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l-- --:l-:;w---;:-:::----;- -:;--:I :.;-- . - ;----:-.- --- - -,----e.:- -n..-;-i---,-l-----gil.si|.l.;:i-:
0N.. NN.. NN.. N.. No. N... q.. me. we. .8. a. 4 ago:
oc.N .¢.N Ne.m N... NN.. 9N.N no.. a:.. m... Nc.. .

I". .. llil'lll n'll.'v|.'.0| «lizoiillilll 0| ..|Ill u L 31*- I l i .. . A. i 'Iiill iiilllllllvilltlf I1 I'ln I o.a|nlll|0i .illl InjlivniIOI i‘ll‘ l!'ll’lillll.|nlllt .I Iulc'
m... NN.. o... .N.. .N.. .N.. 84.. aN.. o... co. N g ca;.o
N..N cm.N cN.N ow.. mo.N NN.N l. cm.N N..N N..N c..N

o c o a a o o o c o
cc.N so.N oo.N om.. cc.N m... oc.N ==.N NN.. No.. . .N... gaze. .a.u....c<
mm. a... me. an. ac. cm. am. ec.. co. we.
co.¢ oN.N oN.N Ne.N ce.n NN.N m..m No.N NN.N N..N m .c..am u=a=\.m.c:
-lilill illl. lilll|lllllll II. it lll-.l-.illiiL ll uuuuu I - -lu--- .. l 1.... ll llol i .illl liifltlilliiilli ulilll.l I!
No. .. . Na em . me . av . NM . Ne . .N . o. .
mc.« N..N N..N N..N . N¢.N Ne.N NN.N mm.N NN.N No.N .. samcou\aaaca soc.
llcill A ll fl lll'tilnlllll.tlrlalltilll n I. i -O'Illlluilg lllll I" lllll i I}! ll
o .N. c Ne. mm. .N.. on. N.. N.. Ne.
oc.m om.. oc.N o... mN.N Nm.m N... No.m Nc.e om.n N aunt. Neon
lolllil ii IIIIIIIIITI -lliu'lllllul'.|_| lllliobliliA -30.!) u-.ll|linli-lllillilLE.l-cla:lll ll.|!l"|llrit|l"|| '
mm. mm.. Nm. Ne. mN. om. mm. mm. mm. mm.
NN.. NN.N NN.N No.N N..N NN.N NN.N No.n co." «4.. mount. eta

ill-||l'l.ll'+.||l..l.tillnillllllluli fl |i|2|-l'l|ll T‘kln! Tlllcll l L0 I'll! oul‘.’|.+' A III Ollluil [Ill
.0.. NN.. as.. .8. cc.. cm.. .N.. m... .m.. .c..
oN.N N..m .N.N ...N am.. NN.N em.N NN.N om.N 3N.N .N mauacm ma.

Illitlll'liili Ylll 'ilvrlol llalilll ‘i'lllcl'llIILII till llillLrvi‘viLallv! i InviL o Cl
me.. an.. .4. .N. em. ac.. mm. .c.. N... Na.
om.m oc.n co.N No.N co.N oN.N ca.N .N.N N¢.N mm.N a ca.ooum ua~.co.cz
N... NN.. .c.. NN.. e... NN.. ac.. o... mN.. cN..

N..N N..N . o..m . ao.N N..N a..N om.N a..N No.N wo.N NN c.a;u.aacz

1:: l..- zillll villi!!! .lillllii Ill Till?! -lnll l- 1. .lo... ililli. Ill . -i iillillll viii
.m.. Nm.. .N.. a... mN.. mN.. No.. .N.. oN.. NN.. NN a=au
mo.N «N.N em.m c..N c... m..N o..N .o.. no.. cw..

Ill. 0| ill .fill lilil. ........ ill l. To '0 «Ill-ii null; .uilll. lllll 1i! ll. Illll In. lolllnllllbllll
NN.. .N.. a... N... N... NN.. ca. NN.. Nc.. N...

a..n cc.” ee.n No.N om.. mm.N o..N NN.. 88.. cm.. ON ca..az
.. . klliliiillo llllill|ii III- 00. ii
Nm.. NN.. a... NN. Na. NNN. .N.. a... o«.. uNN.
NN.N mm.” NN.N .e.N 0N.N mN.N No.N ee.N .m.N acN.N a. maga.=cu
I-l..---nll4 -lli Li .
.uoum .o mccpuacou_< omagucaa aaouaw u=m§o>ox mauemumo. 0:.mmuga “cobaou zu._.aac:e oucogucaa<
mm~=.=.a.~= co. com: a. N....n<
mecoucou a:.zuc_u .IHQ a: moo—>oa
A~m_nzv mcgoucou a:.:ao.u an moo—>wa .N. opooh

665

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.Ew-coca a N>Nz—N u

 

c.m c. Etpccga a co>m= n o._ No o—uum a co twuaatcu .caoz

.co....>NN NNNuNN.NN

a

.u.umpcouuccmgu mwga :uNI muuonaam .Naobo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--:::::!iia.ll:;-:et-., 2:-:---::--;..:.3--:-:-.--.--:-; -.....:-.;.:.:4.:.:..:.::.... :: -:i ........
N N N N N N N N N N .
NN.. NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.. . 2N.N.N3N
-:.:-l -:---:.I-,-- : --:.::I|-o..: fl- -- l... 5:. i- --.--I-- 4 .2... i. ; -.-.- e-- l---,-.- -- -- ---- -..---i Ti..- .-.. ii-.. . -
NN.. NN.. NN . NN . NN . N. . NN . NN . .N . NN . N
NN.N NN.N _ NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. N N... N. =.c~uz c. ommmcoaa
-I--i--.|l.i:-.-u in. IAN ---|Il| .--o--vl‘lit -: -49 It lr-----|-- .lOo-!:l-.T.---c -..lo-.; 0----.-1 -I..l--
NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN..
NN.N ...N N..N NN.. NN.. .N.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.. NN No.m.> c. NNNNNNNN
.li--|---l| -9..- 0-.-l:-u.- .----T.l---i---.i--...-ali1..|l.lll-¢..1.i..:-----.LI....4¢---IToiull.... --i-:-.civ u
.N.. NN. NN. NN.. NN.. NN.. NN. N... .... .N..
NN.N NN.N .N.N .N.. . .N.. . NN.. A NN.N N..N NN.. NN.N N. Nxa.NN.NNNNsa.NN
t--. I'll..- I.-- ill. i-,.LT..-,I.-‘.l|-U.-T- -0... I‘ll.-- I .l.!. fi '1----l v-1--clli j---’ -n-! . ‘1'-.. 1...
NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN.. .... N... NN.. N...
NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.. N. Nu=NN.N=ou=.
NN.. NN.. N... N... NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. N... NN NUNNLNNNN
NN.N N..N NN.N N..N NN.N .N.N NN.N NN.. NN.N NN.. NNNNNNNNN NN.2..
.9--- -l +.... I- -f-.. I.-- T-l--- A. ......l .-. l ---..- .: l-0 I. -lv-l-..¢-i v.--
NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. N... NN.. N...
NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.. NN Noe..NN NN..N..
-lli-.-l- 1----l:.l--i..-..----i-.T.il-.. -l- (a. .. ill-illv- . i. 11 70.
NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. .N.. NN.. N... N... NN.. N...
...N N..-N N..N N..-N ...N NNN 3N NN.. 8N NN.. NN $229... $3 NN..-8:8
:1:.--.;-..:--:- --:--.:--:::..:-:...i...2--::---:-.-:-i..i.:.-:;-:;.:i.-. : -
NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. NN.. .N.. N... NN Nueozaso:
N..N N..N NN-N NN.. NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. NN.. ..NaN No.aeou Naa.s..
N... N... N... N... NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN.. N. NNNNENNNN
NN.N NN.N NN.N N..N N..N .N.N NN.N NN.N .. N..N NN.N ..NeN Na..s..
--i-i-l till: -I---.-Iu--fi----l-r.--.1 I. I.
NN.. .N.. N... N... N... NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN.. NN NNNNENNNN
.N.N NN.N N.-N NN.N NN.N .N.N .N.N N..N .N.N NN.N N.NNN NNLN. NN..5..
:- .N.N-:1..- :1: l...N.I.-.----i-.!- 5...... . -- -- -. 1. --.::--... 71:--- 5..---- : .- -.-.: :l:
.. N.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. N... NN.. NN.. NN..
N..N NN.N NN.N N..N N..N NN.N NN.N NN.. NN.. “NN.. NN .caaaso: o. NNN..N.NNN
-- ....... 1 I! l.-- 1---.0-1- 2.0...- lo-a.-ol.-TII-- 0----.f---i- r09...
Nbaum be mcoNucgmup< omugugan sumbum ucwsm>oz Ncocmumeu 9:.mwosa agoNEou NN..—aec== oucucamaa<
$2.332. N .2 8...: 3 3:22.? N
mccooccu a:.=.o_u a: u.uN_N~uue.o:u .Nu.maga

 

Awn—uz. mccmuzou u:.z«o.u as Nu.um.couuusngu .Nu.maga

I 0‘! 1.0’i-.n

-.--- -Ill'l'l. ll--- -5- b -11--- 1].}--- I-..

m- e—aa»

 

66a

me.—
oo.n

.NN.m .0
mmccpaNa_m:

-... I'll -- I --L

 

I

so.~
o..m

-. --. .l.... I...

n-1-l- n.-.- C..- i. I-..

NecNNNNNNN<
3. 8N2

Ill-0.0-! I..- -l. I.

 

N-.: ..

. . 41......

1-.-»- -- IIIiIIV-.

om.m
op.—
-.m
we.—
cm.m

mmosucza
3 3:2...

 

~—.m

.- .lIO-.O .u

v--

«N.—

cc.—
cc.—

 

N—._
aa._

0... :47-

Nuobom

 

c.-. T .

u=o5w>ox

.ao_;c.a N NNN3_N .

—m-—
cc.m

m..—
mm.~

am.—
N¢._
en.—
.¢.~
av.—
Km.~

me.—
em.~

msmcogmau

 

 

cm.—
mo.~
a..—
cm.~

acpmmmco
:... ........ .

Nccaucou a=_gao.u

so::_»=ou A~m_uzv mzcoucou a:.;.a_u >2 Nu_.m_.moucco;u .NUNNNz;

v.vl

am.
no.—
em.
~c.~
cm.—
Na.—
m...
3:.—
cm.—
e..w
.N..
c—.~

u.cNacu

 

-- 1.....-

:. III '.. I I..- \I. 9..--..-

.--I -1

f--ll--i

N..—
om._
Ta-I-l--v1~ I,
ma.—
am.~
ck.-
ww.—
«v.—
em.—
om._
cm.—

III:-«;-I-v--I

Ne.—
o~.~

>u_—.ao.=a

all-.0 OI

 

3|... --- 'Il

. -I ll-l-l-‘x.

c.m o. sm.;oca N Nc>oc . a.— Nc a.cum N :o nouzasou .cocz

.comuc_>vu uNNv=Nch

a

.u..m.cogumcego mpg» :u_: muumna=m poaopc

v~.—
mm.—
V...:ilu - .---:!.

NN.
N.....
NN..
NN..

-lliiiN

N...

NN..

- -- 1-31

NN..

8N
NN..

N .
.N.. N

fi..:z---:|.
35.3.2.3

..- nit-l.

 

I .01. I-O. - .-|II

.n— w—sep

 

11.- I-‘ On .1». c: Ill! -..I- ll I

v-1u-I- i-l-- In. . vi- I.I.

9.2a is .8. .. :5:

-luanq.-.’ I.-- I...

N.oo.atai.

-I'.‘ flu-i. Iv: .l-Ol.

N_mo_a_cus:c

Nwa—QNNNN

a... |--I.-. .- -.ill.ll . l.|- II I-

u_.NN.oNuccu:u _cu.N>;a

- -.- I-|I- n I | .0). .1 ii.

 

67

at least sometimes by the entire sample was the slipperiness of shoe
soles; the mean for this item was 3.l3, the highest for any clothing
problem.

The ability to purchase suitable, functional garments was sometimes
problematic for almost all subjects. People who experienced no physical
characteristics and who used body braces and artificial, lower limbs said
that they were seldom able to do so. Alterations were sometimes necessary
for the majority of respondents. They were seldom needed by paraplegics,
ostomates, people with decreased hearing ability, and those who used
wheelchairs, artificial lower limbs, and no devices, However, the two
subjects wearing body braces found frequent alterations necessary.

When shopping for clothing, unknowledgeable or unhelpful staffs
were sometimes encountered by handicappers with most physical characteris-
tics and devices. Among respondents with decreased hearing and vision,
hemiplegia, and either unlisted or no physical characteristics and devices,
there were few problems in obtaining assistance with clothing purchases;
subjects using leg braces, artificial lower limbs, and no devices also
had little difficulty. However, frequent problems were experienced by.
people with arm braces, splints, and back braces. When buying clothing
respondents who wore body braces said that they never received adequate

service.

Retailers
General Characteristics
0f the l24 retail store employees sampled, 76.6 percent were female
and 22.6 percent were male. One respondent did not answer this question.

Their ages ranged from 18 to l9 years to 65 to 74 years of age, with most

68

between the ages of 20 and 34. All of the respondents had at least a high
school education, 25.8 percent had completed some college or business
school, 15.3 percent were college graduates, and 11.3 percent held
associate's degrees.

The largest percentage group of subjects, 40.3 percent, had one to
five years of clothing retail experience. Twenty-one percent had ten or
more years of experience, while an equal number had spent less than one
year in clothing stores. The remaining 16.1 percent had spent five to
ten years in apparel sales. The majority of subjects, 57.3 percent, were
full-time employees. Virtually all positions were represented in the
sample. Four percent of the respondents were store owners, 15.3 percent
store managers and an equal percentage were department managers; 62.9
percent were salespeople. Only one buyer participated in the study.

The largest number of subjects, 54 percent, worked in department
stores. Equal percentages of respondents, 12.1 percent, were employed
in women's specialty and discount stores; 10.5 percent were men's store
employees, and 11.3 percent worked in clothing specialty stores. The
majority of retailers, 81.5 percent, were employed in urban stores and
18.5 percent in small-town businesses.

The subjects had considerable experience in serving handicapper
shoppers. More than 60 percent had assisted customers with wheelchairs,
crutches, and canes. People with walkers, motorized scooters, and artifi-
cial limbs had also been aided by many respondents (see Table 14). In
open response, store personnel indicated that they had assisted shoppers
who had visual characteristics, arthritis, amputations, and who used
braces and arm slings; some customers had undergone strokes and mastec-

tomies. Several respondents had served numerous patrons who used orthotic

69

Table 14. Retailers' Assistance of Handicappers Using Devices (N=124)

 

 

Mobility Device Frequency Percentagea
Crutches 86 69.4
Wheelchair 84 67.7
Motorized Scooter 29 23.4
Walker 51 41.1
Cane 78 62.9
Artificial Limb 29 23.4
Other or No Device 11 8.9

Never Assisted a
Handicapper - 13 10.5

aSome respondents selected more than one category

70

and prosthetic devices; some had experience in working with as many as
six different devices and with various physical characteristics. Only
10.5 percent of the employees had never assisted a handicapper. However,
contact with these shoppers was not dependent on sales experience. Nine
of the 13 respondents who had never served handicappers had worked in
clothing sales for one to five years; one had five to ten years of retail
experience.

Most retailers, 58.1 percent, did not think that a sizable, handi-
capper market existed. Only one of the five store owners and six of the
13 store managers thought that there was such a market. However, 52.4
percent of the respondents thought that it would be cost effective to
serve handicappers. The majority of employees in almost all positions
thought that tapping the handicapper market would be profitable; only one
store owner concurred. Percentages of department managers and salespeople
who felt that there was a large, profitable, handicapper market were
greater than for other positions (see Table 15).

Almost two-thirds of the respondents, including three store owners,
did not think that retailers were aware of handicapper clothing needs.
Only 11.3 percent of the subjects had ever received training in or infor-
mation about assisting handicapper shoppers; this included three of the
16 store managers and nine of the 78 salespeople. Even though retailers
thought that they lacked awareness of and training in meeting handicapper
needs, 52.1 percent did not consider training necessary. Four store owners
and 10 of the 19 store managers saw no need to provide employees with
instruction on aiding handicapper shoppers. However, more than half of
the salespeople, 51.9 percent, did think that training would be helpful;

eight of the 19 department managers, 42.1 percent, agreed.

71

Nco.umo=c amaze on coocoomo. on: Nuoofinsm z—co m=Noapo=N .momopcoogoq oco NNNNou ooumano<n
copumoaa NNzu achozch muoonoam pouopo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a..Nm um.Ne am.mw um... u..oo um.mm um.m¢ am.em am.oo um.mm

NN N.. N... N. NN N.. NN NN .N .NN N.. .30.
..... ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- N omcoqmoz oz
n..m¢ ao..m nm.mm NN... um.mm um.om um.¢e am.mm u_.mm am..¢

NN 8 . NN N N.. NN NN NN N.. .N NN 822.85

Nom.>cog=m\commcmz

NN.Nm NP.N¢ um.mm Rm.oN ue.mo am.pm n¢.e¢ no.mm NN.Nm NN.N¢ .umm< .NomN>NoN:m

.. N N. N N. N N o. o. N N. 2322 2223......
ao.oo— no.oo— ao.oo. mo.oo. no.0o.

. o P o F o o p . o . Noasm .umm<\.ozsm
Ne.~m n¢.m¢ a~.¢w um.mp NN.mN NN.NN ae.Nv NN.Nm n¢.mo No..m

o. m m. m N. m N o. m. o N Nomocmz .NNN<\NomN=Nz
no.om no.0N uo.oo_ ma.om No.o¢ no.0m uo.om ao.om no.o~

e N m o m N e _ e P m NocpNoNNNoczo

oz mo> oz No> oz No» oz mo> oz No> c coNuNNoN

J d
.wmwmv .mwymwmm< Lmlfimv .Mflmwv .mvnmv
Lw..o a~_&xzw. Lw.Nv mv.o Lw.m7

00.0,. .N.N NN..-co. 00%. % o. o... a.

v Nv_.oav aw A” ,mv Nv

v o .x.
s 0%. f
Aempnzv moop>cmm ocm poxgmz NonnouNocoz mcpccmocoo Nomzoamoz .mpNNuoz .mp m—noh

72

Accessibility Concerns

For all handicapper accessibility concerns, retailers' means were
higher than those of handicappers. A11 means were above 3.00, indicating
that respondents thought that store accessibility was sometimes to always a
problem (see Table 16). The mode for almost every item was 4.00. Standard
deviations for each concern were smaller for retailers than for handicap-
pers; this signifies that retailers' responses were less diverse than those of
handicappers. Thus, retailers thought that handicappers experienced

greater difficulty with store accessibility than they actually did.

Clothing Concerns

Retailers' means for clothing concerns were above 3.00 in all but
one category (see Table 17). These were higher than the handicapper means,
all of which were below 2.00. These findings indicate that handicappers
experienced fewer clothing problems than retailers thought existed. As
with the accessibility concerns, the standard deviations for retailers'
responses were smaller than those of handicappers.

Handicappers and retailers agreed on the availability of adequate,
functional clothing; both group means were above 3.00. An analysis of
variance indicated that there was no significant difference at the .05
level between the means of handicappers and retailers on the question con-
cerning the handicapper‘s ability to purchase suitable garments (see
Appendix 0, Table 08). In open response, several subjects said that
apparel was available to satisfy every need and that it was always possi-
ble to find appropriate clothing. They also felt that handicapper shoppers
knew their needs well enough to make the correct purchases. One respon-

dent thought that stores should stock clothing designed for handicappers;

73

Table 16. Handicapper Accessibility Concerns
as Seen by Retailers (N=124)

 

 

Accessibility Concern na Meanb St. Deviation Mode

Transportation 121 3.55 .70 4.00

Access to Store 119 3.04 .97 4.00

Difficulty in Moving 123 3.17 .97 3.00
Through Store

Difficulty in 123 3.41 .89 4.00
Shopping

Fitting Room 123 3.41 1.01 4.00
Accessibility

Inability to Try on 118 3.29 .94 4.00
Garments

aTotal subjects answering this question

bMeans were computed on a scale of l.O=never a problem to 5.0=

always a problem

74

Table 17. Handicapper Clothing and Shopping Concerns
as Seen by Retailers (N=124)

 

 

Clothing Concern na Meanb St. Deviation Mode
Appearance 124 3.09 .79 3.00
Durability 124 3.16 .81 3.00
Comfort 124 3.02 .77 3.00
Dressing Ease 124 3.33 .89 3.00
Fasteners 124 2.62 .63 3.00
Movement 124 3.05 .73 3.00
Safety 124 3.03 .68- 3.00
Ability to Purchase 121 3.27 .87 3.00
Suitable Clothing
Helpfulness of Staff 123 3.20 1.09 4.00

aTotal subjects answering this question

bMeans were computed on a scale of l.O=never a problem to 5.0=

always a problem

75

other subjects considered it unreasonable to expect stores to cater to
these and other special needs.

Retailers thought that handicappers encountered unknowledgeable,
unhelpful store personnel at least some of the time; the mean for this
item was 3.20. Though the mean for handicappers was lower, an analysis of
variance showed no significant difference at the .05 level between the
two groups (see Appendix 0, Table 015). According to open responses,
many retailers felt incognizant of handicapper clothing needs. 0ne re-
spondent said that it was difficult to evaluate the suitability of cloth-
ing unless handicapper customers returned to report on garment performance.
Another subject stated that handicappers seemed to know their own cloth-
ing requirements and did not seek assistance from the staff. One respon-
dent thought that handicappers, as well as other shoppers, would receive

more personalized service if stores were adequately staffed.

.5222
General Characteristics

0f the 28 stores participating in the survey, there were four stores
each in the categories of men's, women's, clothing specialty, and discount
stores. Twelve department stores comprised the remainder of the sample,
which contained 15 men's and 13 women's clothing departments and stores.

Most stores were located in auto strip developments and downtown-
type, retail areas; few were situated in malls (see Table 18). Th0ugh
half of the retailers sampled served small towns, 19 of the stores were
located in metropolitan areas. The remaining businesses were situated in
small towns.

Accessibility problems were evident in all store areas surveyed

(see Table 19). The mean score for parking and public way access in all

76

Table 18. Location of Stores Surveyed (N=28)

 

 

Location Frequency Percentage

Auto Strip Development 14 50.0

Concentrated Retail ‘ 10 35.7
Area

Open Mall 1 3.6

Enclosed Mall 3 10.7

Total 28 100.0

77

Table 19. Mean Ratings for Accessibility Concerns (N=28)

 

 

Mean Optimal
Accessibility Concern Rating Ratinga Percentage
Parking and Public 8.9 19 46.8
Way Access
Approach to Building 6.6 10 66.0
Entrance to Store . 16.8 25 67.2
Store Accessibility 36.5 71 51.4
Clothing Sales Area 35.6 71 50.1
Accessibility
Customer Services 5.4 11 49.1
Total Store 140.8 280 50.1
Accessibility

aThe point system appears in Appendix B

78

stores was less than half of the optimal rating. Though 71.4 percent of
the stores had handicapper designated parking, only 21.4 percent of the
parking spaces were the width stipulated in the state accessibility code.
The required number of handicapper slots, which is dependent on lot size,
was available in 14.3 percent of the stores. Handicapper parking was
located 99 feet or closer to the accessible entrance in only 39.3 percent
of the businesses. Though most parking was provided in lots, it was
separated from the store by a line of motorized travel in 64.3 percent of
the cases. In half of the stores surveyed, the path from the lot to the
store was obstructed by steps, curbs, or other obstacles. Even when the
accessible entrance was located some distance from the handicapper parking
facilities, there were no signs designating the barrier-free route or
entryway. The one Open mall included in the sample had a fairly direct,
accessible path to the store being surveyed.

Approaches to buildings were more accessible than parking areas,
with a mean score of 66 percent of the maximum rating. Though most stores
had loading zones for cars, few had provisions for public transit,
expecially in small towns. Pathways to stores were grade level in 67.9
percent of the cases. However, some entrances could only be approached
via steps with inadequate handrails.

Store entrances were generally accessible; the mean score for all
stores was 67.2 percent of the highest rating. Though 89.3 percent of the
stores had doors, more than 60 percent had openings wide enough to admit
wheelchairs. The remaining 14.3 percent of the stores, which were located
in an enclosed mall, had completely Open fronts. At 89.3 percent of the
entryways, there were beveled thresholds. Most doors also had hardware

that would be easily operable by handicappers. Features inhibiting

79

accessibility included the presence of doors in series in 42.9 percent of
the stores and the need for excessive pressure to open an equal percentage
of doors.

In most instances, store interiors were easily accessed. All merchan-
dise was located on one level in 67.9 percent of the stores; in 82.1
percent of the businesses, all facilities were located on the accessible
entrance level. Because they had more than one level, four of the stores,
14.3 percent of the sample, had elevators. Though all of the elevators
were large enough to admit wheelchairs and other mobility devices, they
contained few of the features contributing to maximal accessibility. In
one store, the only elevator available was used for freight. One store,
representing 3.6 percent of the sample, had stairs as the only means of
circulation.

Clothing sales areas were only moderately accessible; the mean
score for all stores included only 49.4 percent of the total points possi-
ble. Furnishing were the greatest obstacles to shopping ease for handi-
cappers. In only 10 stores, 35.7 percent of the sample, all counters were
low enough to accommodate wheelchair users. Seventy-five to 100 percent
of the counters were above the accessible height in 46.3 percent of the
stores. Clothing racks were out of the reach of seated shoppers in 92.9
percent, all but two, of the businesses. All shelves were low enough to
facilitate shopping from a wheelchair or scooter in only four stores,
14.3 percent of the sample. However, 67.8 percent of the stores had fewer
than half of their shelves above the accessible height. Open stock dis-
plays, merchandise stored and exhibited on walls, racks, etc., were above

the desirable height in 19, or 67.9 percent, of the stores.

80

The traffic route through clothing departments was fairly barrier-
free. In 64.3 percent of the stores, all major aisles were of adequate
width; conversely, in 18 stores, an equal number of cases, minor aisles
were too narrow to allow the safe passage of people with mobility devices.
Though there was adequate turning space at the ends of many closed aisles,
most open aisles did not have sufficient clearance. Sixteen stores, 57.1
percent of the sample, had carpeted clothing areas; equal numbers of
stores had thick/padded and low pile/unpadded carpeting. Only three stores
had wood or cement flooring. Another 10.7 percent of the stores had split-
level clothing departments; in each case, steps were the only means of
ascent.

Though only the most barrier free fitting rooms were surveyed in
each store, facilities for handicappers were still mediocre. Dressing
rooms met only 51.9 percent of the accessibility standards set forth in
the survey. Four stores had fitting rooms that employees considered ac-
cessible to peOple with mobility devices and to which these shoppers
would be directed. In 57.2 percent of the sample, including 15 stores,
dressing rooms were located along a corridor. Though most hallways had
entrances wide enough to admit a wheelchair, 66.6 percent did not have
adequate width to allow its safe movement.

In 71.4 percent of the clothing departments, representing 20 stores,
fitting room entrances were inaccessible to wheelchairs. Fifteen dressing
rooms had doors, and the remaining 42.8 percent closed with curtains.
Although most doors that opened toward the exterior of the fitting room
had sufficient clearance for the circumvention of wheelchairs, doors
opening toward the room's interior did not; because these doors would have

to remain open, some other means of shielding customers from passersby

81

was necessary. Fitting rooms had too little floor area to be properly used
by people in wheelchairs in all but two stores.

Though clothing hooks were above the accessible height in all
stores, 82.1 percent of the fitting rooms had shelves, benches, chairs,
or other surfaces on which to rest garments and parcels. In 46.4 percent
of the stores, mirrors did not extend close enough to the floor to allow
a clear view by customers who were seated or small in stature. Dressing
room floors were carpeted in 23 stores, 82.1 percent of the sample.
Alternative, try-on areas, for people to whom fitting rooms were inacces-
sible, were available in 16 stores. These were usually stockrooms, offices,
or a combination of the two. Most alternate rooms had adequate floor space
for the easy movement of mobility devices, partitions to shield the
customer from other shoppers, and a surface for sitting or resting par-
cels. All had sufficient lighting and clean floors with easily traversed
surfaces of wood, cement, or tile. In five stores, in which no alternative
fitting areas were available, arrangements were made to allow regular
customers to take garments home on approval without purchasing them. Three
stores would not allow this because of the possibility of theft.

Checkout and customer service areas met only 49.1 percent of the
survey's accessibility standards. In three-fourths of the stores, counters
at checkout or purchasing centers were too high. Though eight stores
utilized lanes, all but one had an alternate lane wide enough to accommo-
date a wheelchair. Every customer service department, handling layaways,
credit, etc., was either located on the accessible entrance level or was
approachable to handicappers by some means. Business windows were too
high in 67.9 percent of the stores; however, low writing surfaces were

provided by 60.7 percent of the retailers. Wheelchairs were available to

82

customers in 10 stores; discount stores also offered motorized scooters.
Accessible restrooms, four of which were unisex, were available in nine
stores, 32.2 percent of the sample.

The mean, total store accessibility score for all stores was 50.1
percent. This supports the findings from the handicapper and retailer
samples. Though retailers acknowledged frequent accessibility problems in
all areas, handicappers said that they experienced difficulty in moving
through stores and with fitting rooms sometimes to frequently. Mean
store scores of 51.4 and 51.9 percent for these two areas, respectively,
indicated that problems do exist. Handicappers sustained inconvenience

because of other accessibility concerns as well, but to a lesser degree.

*Comparison of Store Types

For all accessibility considerations, discount stores had the
highest ratings when compared to specialty and department stores. Depart-
ment stores had the lowest ratings in all but three areas. 0n total store
accessibility, discount stores received 56.9 percent of the possible
points, while department stores had only 48.1 percent of the total score.
Specialty stores were somewhat more accessible, with 49.9 percent of the
optimal, barrier-free rating (see Figure 1).

Discount store parking facilities were superior to those of other
stores. In all cases, handicapper parking slots were signed, of adequate
width, and located as close as possible to entrances. Pathways to en-
trances were always grade level. All entryways had automatic doors wide
enough to admit mobility devices. However, doors on specialty and depart-
ment stores were often too narrow and sometimes required excessive
pressure to open. Because all merchandise was usually located on one

level, discount and specialty stores received higher ratings on measures

83

Figure 1

Accessibility Ratings of Specialty, Department,
and Discount Stores (N=28)

Parking and Public
Way Access

Approach to Store/
Mall

Store Entrance

Clothing Area
Furnishings

Clothing Area
Traffic Pattern

Fitting Rooms

Total Clothing
Sales Area

Access to Store
Levels

Checkout Area and
Customer Services

Total Store
Accessibility

V Specialty (n=12 )
m Department (n=12)
Discount (n =4)

aOptimal accessibility rating.

20 4o 60 80 1008

T T T T

“
I lllllll I ”Va“.L

 

        
    
   
   

  

Illlll H [ll H Illlll HI

IIIIIIIH IIIIIIIII lllll‘.E.

V

Q

lllll H lllll lllll‘.i.

1

IIIIIII H III N IIT‘.

‘
H llllll lllll H III

”I H [Ill H III III.

“
IHI H IIIIIIH lllll

 

See Appendix B for point system.

84

of the accessibility of levels within the building. Elevators with
minimal, accessible features were the usual means of circulation within
department stores.

Though 75 to 100 percent of the clothing racks in discount stores
exceeded the accessible height, the overall rating of discount centers
for clothing department furnishings was still the highest, at 51.9
percent. All shelves and open stock displays were at or below the re-
quired height; according to discount store management, lower counters
and displays allowed maximal visibility throughout the store. Specialty
stores had the lowest rating on furnishings. Although they contained many
clothing racks of accessible height, numerous display shelves and racks
extended beyond the reach of even standing customers. This method of stor-
ing merchandise, on shelves and racks that reached almost to the ceiling,
allowed most of the stock to be placed on the sales floor, according to
specialty store employees.

Both major and minor aisles in discount centers exceeded accessible
widths. Though this feature was necessary to allow customers with shop-
ping carts to pass each other, it also enhanced accessibility. Aisles in
specialty stores were the narrowest, with many minor aisles not meeting
accessibility requirements; lower ratings were also necessitated by dis-
plays that obstructed pathways. Department store aisles were similarly
narrow. Because their clothing department floors were not carpeted, dis-
count stores also received high ratings on mobility within this area.
However, the easily traversed, tile floors found in the discount stores
surveyed are no longer standard for all such stores; in an effort to up-
grade their image, some discounters have begun to install carpeting in

their clothing departments ("How Discounter Aims for Easily Shopped

85

Stores," 1975). In specialty and department stores, all floors were
carpeted, some having deep pile or thick underlayments. Some of the
department stores had split-level, clothing departments, with steps as
the only means of circulation.

Fitting rooms in all of the discount stores surveyed were accessible,
having been designed to meet the needs of handicappers. Three specialty
stores, belonging to the same company as the discount stores, had similar
fitting rooms. Built-in benches were provided in each cubicle, and cur-
tains allowed for privacy. Most department and specialty store dressing
rooms had narrow entrances and were too small to accommodate wheelchairs
or other mobility devices. Some of these also lacked surfaces for parcels.

Though the discount stores utilized checkout lanes, alternate
routes were always available. Wheelchairs and motorized scooters were
also provided for customers at these stores. Each of the discount and
four of the specialty stores had accessible restrooms. Most specialty
stores, however, had no restrooms for customers, contributing to their
lower rating on the accessibility of the checkout area and customer
services.

In support of the high accessibility rating for discount centers,
15.9 percent of the handicapper respondents elected to shop in these
stores. Shoppers also expressed a greater preference for specialty stores
than in previous studies (Reich, 1979; Shipley, 1961). Department stores,
however, were still the most preferred, but not by as large a percentage
as in earlier research (Reich, 1979; Richards, 1971; Walker, 1972).

These results could reflect the increased accessibility of discount and

specialty stores, as determined by this study.

86

Comparison of Men's and Women's
Clothing Sales Areas

In comparison, women's clothing departments were more accessible
than men's. Although clothing area furnishings rated exactly the same,
fitting rooms in women's departments and stores were far more barrier-
free; their fitting area accessibility score was 60.1 percent, as compared
to 46.7 percent for men's changing areas. Alternative fitting areas in
stores and departments serving females were also better equipped. When
it was necessary to make other arrangements for trying on and approving
garments, retailers were more accommodating in the women's clothing stores
and departments surveyed (see Figure 2). Shopping difficulty could ex-
plain why 22.8 percent of the male, handicapper respondents wore clothing
selected by a spouse or relative, as compared to 12.7 percent of the

females.

Comparison of Store Locations

When rated by handicappers and by the accessibility checklist,
shopping locations appeared in the same order; 1) enclosed malls, 2) auto
strip developments, 3) downtown-type, retail areas, and 4) open malls (see
Table 20). Both enclosed malls and auto strip developments had better
parking facilities and public way access than the other shopping locations.
Enclosed malls, in which three stores were located, presented few addi-
tional accessibility problems. All public entrances were barrier-free,
with easily opened doors that were wide enough to admit wheelchairs. Door
hardware, which was probably selected for its accessibility, was design-
balanced. Entryway thresholds were beveled, allowing the safe movement
of wheelchair and crutch users. Mall pathways were surfaced with cement

or tile, and were of more than adequate width for all mobility devices.

87

Figure 2

Accessibility Ratings of Men's and Women's
Clothing Sales Areas

0 20 4o 60 80 1008'

T T T

   
 

Clothing Area
Furnishings

 

Fitting Rooms

 

Alternative Fitting
Areas

  

Arrangements for
Approving Garments

 

Total Department 0000000000000000000
Accessibility

 

‘003'0- Men's departments/stores (n=15)
- Women's departments/stores (n=13)

aOptimal accessibility rating. See Appendix B for point system.

Table 20.

88

Mean Accessibility Ratings of Store Locations

and Frequency of Use by Handicappers

 

 

Percentage of Use by
Store Location Optimal Ratinga Handicappers
Auto Strip Development 51.8 15.2
Concentrated Retail 48.6 8.3
Area '
Open Mall 45.0 3.8
Enclosed Mall 52.1 61.4

aOptimal Rating=280 points.

See Appendix B

for point system

89

In all cases, stores were located on the accessible entrance level.
However, because the three enclosed mall stores surveyed were situated in
the same, newly rennovated shopping center, generalizations to older

malls may be limited.

Comparison of Store Area

Stores in metropolitan areas had higher accessibility ratings than
those in small towns. Parking facilities, pathways to stores, building
approaches, store entrances, and aisles were more accessible in urban
stores. Though fitting rooms in city businesses had only slightly higher
ratings than those in towns, alternative fitting areas in towns were far
better equipped. Clothing department furnishings in small town stores
were much less accessible; the older counters and fixtures were either
too high or awkwardly arranged for many handicappers to reach (see Table
21). Greater shopping ease could explain why 78 percent of the handicapper

respondents preferred to shop for clothing in urban stores (see Table 7).

Hypotheses

 

Clothing Concerns

It was hypothesized that retailers would not be aware of the cloth-
ing needs of handicappers. In an item by group analysis of the seven
clothing problem areas, all analyses of variance showed a significant
difference at the .05 level between the responses of the two groups. Though
it was assumed that retailers would say that handicappers experienced
fewer clothing problems, retailers' means for all items were higher than
those of handicappers. This indicates that retailers felt that greater
needs existed than did handicappers. On this basis, the hypothesis was

accepted (see Appendix 0, Tables 01 to D7).

Table 21.

90

Mean Accessibility Ratings of Stores by Area (N=28)

 

 

 

Accessibility Concern Store Areaa Optimal Ratingb

City Town

Parking and Public 10.25‘d 6.00 19
Way Access (54.0%) (31.6%)

Entrance to Store 17.26 15.89 25
(69.1%) (63.6%)

Clothing Area 8.00 5.67 16
Furnishings (50.8%) (35.4%)

Fitting Room 14.11 13.78 27
Accessibility (52.2%) (51.0%)

Alternative Fitting 3.26 6.89 11
Area (29.7%) (62.7%)

Clothing Sales Area 9.32 8.44 13
Accessibility (71.7%) (65.0%)

Total Store 143.11 136.56 280
Accessibility (50.9%) (48.6%)

aCity stores: n=19.

Town stores: n=9.

bSee Appendix B for rating system

cMean rating

dPercentage of optimal rating

91

Another hypothesis stated that handicappers would experience diffi-
culty in the use of available clothing most of the time. Therefore, means
for all clothing problem areas would be above 3.00. However, all of the
means were below 2.00, signifying that handicappers seldom encountered
problems. Modes of 1.00 for all problem areas indicate that most subjects
never had difficulty with their garments (see Table 11). Hence, this
hypothesis was rejected.

It was also hypothesized that handicappers would experience diffi-
culty in obtaining suitable clothing most of the time. This hypothesis was
accepted. The mean was 3.40 for the item concerning the ability of handi-
cappers to purchase suitable clothing; the mode was 3.00, denoting that
most subjects were unable to find adequate clothing at least some of the
time (see Table 11). Handicappers and retailers concurred on apparel avail-
ability; an analysis of variance showed no significant difference between

the responses of the two groups (see Appendix 0, Table 08).

Accessibility Concerns

It was hypothesized that retailers would not be aware of the accessi-
bility needs identified by handicappers. This hypothesis was accepted.
For all items, retailers' means were higher than those of handicappers,
indicating that retailers considered all accessibility concerns more
severe than did handicappers (see Appendix 0, Tables 09 to 014). For all
but two of the six items, analyses of variance for accessibility concerns
showed a significant difference at the .05 level between the responses
of handicappers and retailers. There was no significant difference
between responses concerning difficulty in moving through the store and

fitting room accessibility.

92

Clothing Acquisition

Because it was assumed that handicappers would shop in less accessi-
ble stores infrequently, it was hypothesized that retailers would be
more aware of handicapper clothing needs and accessibility problems in
stores identified as more accessible by the accessibility checklist. This
hypothesis was rejected. For all but one item, planned comparisons of
more and less accessible stores showed no significant difference at the
.05 level between responses concerning clothing and accessibility problem
areas. On the item concerning shopping difficulty due to the inability to
reach and see merchandise, the responses of retailers in less accessible
stores were not significantly different from those of handicappers (see
Appendix 0, Tables 016 to 028).

The means for accessibility concerns of retailers in more accessible
stores were closer to handicapper means for only half of the items--
difficulty in moving through the store, fitting room accessibility, and
the inability to try on garments. 0n clothing items, more accessible stores
had closer means on five of the seven items-~appearance, durability, dres-
sing ease, fasteners, and safety. These results indicate that retailers
in more accessible stores were not more aware of handicapper clothing and
accessibility needs.

Handicappers did not frequently encounter unknowledgeable or unhelp-
ful employees; the mean for this item was 2.99. Though an analysis of
variance showed no significant difference between their responses, retail-
ers thought that handicappers received poor service more often than they
actually did. The mean of retailers in more accessible stores was closer

to that of handicappers (see Appendix 0, Table 029).

93

Because of the difficulties that they were said to experience with
transportation, accessibility, and receiving assistance (Bruck, 1978;
Ewald, 1975; Reich, 1979), it was hypothesized that handicappers who
shopped alone would frequent stores less often than those who shopped
with others; they would rely on other clothing sources. This hypothesis
was rejected. Both people sh0pping alone and with others shopped in
stores more often than they used other sources, which included dressmakers,

tailors, mail order businesses and fabric stores.'

Discussion

 

This study revealed many unexpected results, some that were contrary
to previous research. Though all of the earlier studies involving the
clothing concerns of handicappers indicated that there were numerous
problems, the present study did not. Handicapper subjects appeared to
have less difficulty in obtaining attractive, functional apparel than
was expected. There are several possible reasons for these findings.

Though building accessibility, transportation, education, and other
handicapper concerns have been accorded much publicity, clothing has
received little public notice. Handicappers may not really be aware of the
existence of adaptive clothing or of the availability of booklets concern-
ing garment modifications. None of the subjects in Ewald's study (1975)
were aware or had used information about purchase and adaptation of cloth-
ing to accommodate the needs of handicappers.

Handicappers may also be so accustomed to struggling with garments
that they accept clothing difficulties without much concern. According
to Newton (1976), there is a tendency to ignore problems for which there
seem to be no solution. In future studies, handicapper awareness of

adaptive clothing should be examined.

94

In addition, some handicappers may have the tendency to see physical
characteristics and devices as the causes of problems, rather than to
consider the environment as the source of difficulty. This attitude
would be consistent with traditional views of handicappers, that they
possess disabilities and handicaps that incapacitate them in negotiating
the environment (Gentile and Taylor, 1976). Thus, clothing may not be
considered to be the cause of difficulty. One of Ewald's subjects (1975)
adjusted his artificial limb to fit his clothing, rather than altering
the garment to accommodate his prosthesis.

The clothing styles that are popular at any given time may be more
or less suitable to handicapper needs. The clothing available during the
present study may have been more convenient for handicappers than the
apparel that was in use during the previous studies. Current fashions
include flexible, pull-on clothing, wrap garments, and apparel with extra
fullness. The use of denims, natural fibers and synthetic/natural fiber
blends, knitted fabrics, and elastic closures allow garments to be more
durable, comfortable, flexible, and easily removable. The handicapper sub-
jects in the present study may have actually experienced little difficulty
in obtaining attractive, functional clothing. Though the clothing itself
did not seem to be the cause of many problems, the mean for the ability
to purchase suitable clothing was high, indicating that problems exist
somewhere. This mean could reflect difficulties with store accessibility
or with the kind of assistance that handicapper shoppers receive.

Retailers were expected to be unaware of handicapper clothing and
accessibility problems. However, rather than considering their difficul-
ties to be non-existent, retailer respondents thought that handicappers

encountered many more problems than they actually experience. However,

95

retailers' responses do not necessarily reflect a keen awareness of the
needs of handicappers. In open response, several respondents said that
they felt unqualified to answer questions about handicapper problems;

they considered themselves unknowledgeable about clothing and accessi-
bility requirements. One subject stated that, for this reason, she "sat

on the fence a lot" in her responses. An examination of the questionnaires
on which these and similar comments appeared revealed that the answers to
all items ranged from "sometimes a problem" to "always a problem."
Negative categories were avoided.

Retailers could have been educated by the questionnaire itself. They
may have assumed that all of the items listed on the instrument were prob-
lems for some peOple. Respondents also had the Opportunity to talk to the
researcher as she undertook the accessibility survey. Many employees Ob-
served this process and asked whether their stores met accessibility
requirements. In most cases, when the researcher arrived, personnel said
that their stores were accessible. However, when they asked about the
evaluation Of particular areas, some retailers were told that their stores
were not accessible. Although the researcher attempted to circumvent con-
versation, some discussion was unavoidable. In replications of this study,
it is suggested that the accessibility checklist be completed after
retailers have returned their questionnaires.

Feelings Of social responsibility toward handicappers could have
prompted retailers to respond as they did. Employees possibly felt that
they should be aware of the problems that confront handicappers and,
therefore, magnified their significance.

The media have created considerable awareness Of handicapper needs,

emphasizing the difficulties that handicappers encounter. This awareness

96

is necessary to gain acceptance of legislation supporting handicappers,
but it deemphasizes the capabilities of this group. As a result, retailers
may have focused on the negative aspects of the lives of handicappers

and overlooked their abilities (Albrecht, 1976).

Retailers in the more accessible stores were expected to have a
greater awareness of the needs of handicappers than those in less accessi-
ble stores. The findings did not support this conclusion. Because even
the most accessible stores had fairly low point values on the accessibility
checklist, handicappers may not have frequented the more accessible stores
much more often than the less accessible ones. In addition, the four
stores with the highest ratings were discount stores in which employees
seldom assist customers with purchases; these subjects may have had little
awareness Of handicappers' needs because of their limited personal contact
with shoppers. The responses of the large number of people sampled in dis-
count stores would certainly affect the results of the study.

As expected, most stores were fairly inaccessible to handicappers.
Only eight stores, seven Of which were part of the same chain, reflected
efforts to increase accessibility. One store had been remodeled as part
of the rennovation of the mall in which it was located. Because of the
high cost involved in remodeling the store, the needs of handicappers were
considered in designing the fitting rooms and spacing the aisles.

In the stores belonging to the chain, accessibility requirements
had been carefully considered because of the owner's personal commitment
to handicappers. No attempts to increase accessibility were apparent in
the other stores. Even minor modifications involving no cost, such as the
lowering of shelves and clothing racks, had not been made. During the

survey, one store was undergoing the installation of thickly padded

97

carpeting. The manager of the department under observation was aware of
the difficulty that wheelchair-users experience when maneuvering on
carpeting.

These observations lead to the conclusion that retailers are either
basically unaware of the needs of handicappers or are not willing to
modify their stores unless they are mandated to do so by law. It is possi—
ble that the executives who control store policy are unaware that their
stores are inaccessible. Perhaps efforts to improve shopping conditions
for handicappers should be directed toward them. .

Retailers appear to have some awareness of handicapper clothing and
accessibility requirements. However, they are neither cognizant Of the
size Of the handicapper market nor of its potential, especially at the
upper management level. For this reason, an innovation-decision/adoption
process involving modifications for handicapper shoppers may not have de-
veloped beyond the knowledge function in many clothing stores. Store
executives could have decided that there was little profit in catering
to the needs Of handicappers. The educational program to be developed as
a result of this research should provide information about the true po-
tential of the handicapper market; it should also promote a realistic
understanding of handicappers and their needs, emphasizing their abilities
as well as their problems. Because handicappers reported few difficulties
with clothing, little effort should be expended on the promotion Of adap-
tive clothing sales. Store accessibility deserves more consideration.
Store modifications, many of which are inexpensive or without cost, should
be emphasized.

When retailers realize that the handicapper market does have poten-
tial and that many of the innovations that will improve shopping condi-

tions for many handicappers need not be costly, they may be willing to

98

implement some small-scale modifications. The multi-faceted nature of
handicapper shopping problems makes it possible to implement numerous
transformations without prohibitive cost. The trial and adoption of

many small-scale innovations will improve shopping conditions for handi-

cappers and eventually increase retailers' profits.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary

There are more than 36 million handicappers in the United States,
over 260 thousand of whom are Michigan residents. They are becoming more
active participants in all phases of community life because Of the in-
creased accessibility of architecture and transportation and greater
access to education. As a result of their increased visibility and
mobility, handicappers require clothing that will facilitate their new
lifestyle, allowing them to be attractive, independent, and mobile.
However, many handicappers find it difficult to secure suitable garments
and have numerous accessibility problems when shopping.

The purpose of this research was to analyze the clothing selection
and store accessibility problems that handicappers encounter. This infor-
mation will be used in the development of an extension-funded, community
education program for handicappers and retailers. It is essential that
both groups become aware of the problems involved and cooperate in their
efforts to improve shopping conditions for handicappers. Retailers will
enjoy an eventual increase in profits.

Preliminary to establishing the course of the research, information
was gathered from several sources. The review of literature provided the
basis for understanding handicapper clothing concerns and general
accessibility requirements. According to past research, handicappers
experience numerous difficulties in Obtaining attractive, functional

clothing. Their characteristics modify physical abilities, bodily functions,

99

100

and appearance; the use of orthotic and prosthetic devices places greater
demands on clothing and architecture. Clothing that is durable, com-
fortable, easily donned and removed, and that does not inhibit mobility
and safety is often unavailable to handicappers.

Because of the variety of physical characteristics among handicap-
pers, the mass production of adaptive clothing is not feasible. Mail
order businesses supply some specially designed apparel; however, these
garments tend to be unattractive and overpriced.

In previous studies, handicappers and elderly shoppers preferred
department stores for clothing purchases. Mobility-limited consumers
favored downtown-type shopping areas. Because of the better selection,
small town residents purchased clothing during city shopping trips.

The subjects in several studies were dissatisfied with the service
that they received in stores; sales clerks lacked either the knowledge or
willingness to assist them. There is evidence, however, that the attitudes
of retailers may be changing. Many stores offer special privileges to
handicapper customers and are training their staffs to be more helpful.

Recent legislation mandating the accessibility of parking facilities
and buildings has enhanced the mobility of handicappers. Few standards
apply to store interiors; therefore, many handicappers still experience
difficulty in shopping for clothing. The majority of retailers may be
unaware of the factors contributing to accessibility, believing that
their stores are easily accessed by handicappers.

As well as the review of literature, interviews with clothing and
barrier-free design specialists and with handicappers were conducted in

an effort to gain a fuller understanding of the current clothing and

101

shopping problems of handicappers. It was determined that information was
needed from three sources--from handicappers, retailers, and stores.
Three instruments were developed.

The handicapper questionnaire requested information concerning the
nature and onset of the physical characteristics, shopping habits, and
the prevalence Of several clothing and accessibility problems. These
questionnaires were mailed to subjects, along with return postage
envelopes.

In order to make direct comparisons between the responses of handi-
cappers and retailers, the retailer questionnaire contained the same
questions about clothing accessibility. Retailers were also asked tO
supply information about their positions, experience in sales, and their
contact with handicapper customers and their training to assist those
shoppers. They were also asked about their impression of the importance
and existence Of a handicapper clothing market. These questionnaires were
delivered to the stores and distributed at the same time that the accessi-
bility checklist for stores was to be completed; they were collected on a
subsequent visit.

The Retail Clothing Store Accessibility Checklist was developed for
the purpose of evaluating the accessibility of individual stores. It was
divided into sections relating to the areas that a person enters during
a shopping trip. Parking and public way access, the approach and entrance
to the store or mall, movement through the store or mall, access to levels
within the building, customer conveniences, and all features within the
clothing sales area were evaluated separately, making it possible to
determine where accessibility problems lay. A point system was devised

that provided each store with an accessibility rating for all sections

102

and for the total store. This enabled stores to be classified as more or
less accessible for purposes of analysis. All surveys were completed by
the researcher during store visitations.

The key informant approach was used to locate the handicapper sample.
Ten Lansing area handicapper agencies were contacted through a central
organization and asked to participate in the study. Because of the confi-
dentiality of their membership, personnel in eight agencies randomly
selected the respondents and addressed the envelopes themselves. In order
to concentrate on handicappers with physical characteristics that directly
influenced clothing selection, agency employees were asked to omit people
whose primary characteristics were aural, visual, mental, emotional, or
speech-related. The researcher utilized the same technique in selecting
respondents from the two agencies which released their membership lists.

Stores located in the Lansing metropolitan area and in randomly
selected outlying cities were included in the sample. Each of these two
groups was supposed to contain 18 stores-—men's, women's, specialty,
department, and discount stores. Stores were randomly selected from the
phone directories serving the chosen cities. Clothing departments serving
men and women were alternately selected from the completed list of specialty,
department, and discount stores. Retailers were randomly selected from the
stores in which accessibility surveys were done.

One hundred and thirty-two handicappers participated in the study.
All physical characteristics under consideration were represented in the
sample. The largest number Of respondents experienced resistance to move-
ment and limited balance, strength, and large-scale motor movement. Some
subjects sustained as many as 13 characteristics simultaneously. 0f the
numerous devices used by respondents, wheelchairs were the most common.

PeOple with assistive devices also had a variety of physical characteristics.

103

Most handicappers dressed independently and almost half of the
respondents selected their own garments. Though department stores were
most preferred for clothing purchases, specialty stores were second in
popularity. Discount stores were third in preference. Only one subject
employed a dressmaker or tailor as a major clothing provider. Enclosed
malls and auto strip developments were considered the most convenient
shopping locations. Whether they lived in cities, small towns, or rural
areas, most handicappers shopped in urban stores.

Transportation to and from stores was seldom a problem for most
respondents. However, other accessibility concerns were problematic for
many handicappers. Difficulty was encountered in gaining access to stores,
moving through stores, reaching and seeing merchandise, and with fitting
rooms. Respondents having the most difficulty included those with arm
braces, body braces, and wrist or hand splints. Contrary to past research,
clothing use was seldom a problem for most respondents. However, the
majority still had difficulty in purchasing suitable clothing at least 7
some of the time. As expected, handicappers sometimes encountered
unknowledgeable, unhelpful staffs.

The retailer sample, containing 124 employees, included subjects
with a variety of positions and experiential levels. Most had assisted
handicapper shoppers, some having worked with as many as six different
devices and with several physical characteristics. Most retailers did
not think that the handicapper market was sizable; however, the majority
Of employees thought that it would be profitable to tap the market.

Almost one third of the subjects thought that retailers were unaware Of
handicapper clothing needs, but more than half felt that training to assist

handicappers was unnecessary. Few subjects had ever received such training.

104

For all clothing and accessibility concerns, retailers' mean
ratings were higher than those of handicappers, indicating that they con-
sidered those problems more severe than did handicappers. Retailers also
felt that handicappers encountered unhelpful store personnel at least
some of the time.

Accessibility problems were evident in all of the stores surveyed.
The parking facilities and paths to stores, store furnishings, fitting
rooms, and customer conveniences in most stores would be problematic for
many customers. Similar difficulties with accessibility were reported by
handicappers and retailers.

For all accessibility considerations, discount stores had the highest
ratings when compared to department and specialty stores. Women's cloth-
ing departments and stores were more barrier-free than men's stores; in
stores with inaccessible fitting rooms, where it was necessary to make
arrangements for trying on and approving garments at home, retailers were
'more accommodating in women's departments and stores.

Stores located in enclosed malls and auto strip developments were
more accessible than those in other locations, and city stores had higher
accessibility ratings than those in small towns. In their responses,
handicappers expressed a preference for the same shopping locations and
areas.

It was hypothesized that retailers would not be aware Of the cloth-
ing needs of handicappers. This hypothesis was accepted, because retailers
thought that handicappers experienced more problems than they actually
did.

Another hypothesis stated that handicappers would experience

difficulty in the use of available clothing most of the time. However,

105

handicappers said that they seldom experienced problems with their
clothing. Hence, the hypothesis was rejected.

It was also hypothesized that handicappers would experience diffi-
culty in obtaining suitable clothing most of the time. This hypothesis
was accepted. Most subjects were unable to find adequate clothing at
least some of the time.

Retailers would not be aware of the accessibility needs identified
by handicappers, according to one hypothesis. This hypothesis was
accepted. In most cases, retailers actually considered accessibility
problems more severe than they were and, therefore, were not aware of the
true needs of handicappers. There was no significant difference between
the responses of handicappers and retailers to questions concerning diffi-
culty in moving through the store and fitting room accessibility.

Because it was assumed that handicappers would shop in less accessi-
ble stores infrequently, it was hypothesized that retailers would be more
aware of handicapper clothing needs and accessibility problems in stores
identified as more accessible by the accessibility checklist. This hypo-
thesis was rejected. For all but one item, planned comparisons of more
and less accessible stores showed no significant difference at the .05
level between responses concerning clothing and accessibility problems.

It was hypothesized that handicappers who shopped alone would°
frequent stores less often than those who shopped with others, relying
on other means of clothing acquisition. This hypothesis was rejected.
Both groups, those who shopped alone and those who shopped with other
people, shopped in stores much more often than they utilized other
clothing sources.

Most of the results of this study were contrary to previous research.

Though all of the earlier studies concerning handicapper clothing problems

106

indicated that there were numerous difficulties, the present study did not.
Possible reasons for the difference include handicappers' possible lack

Of awareness of adaptive clothing or their acceptance of clothing problems
as immutable consequences of their physical characteristics. In keeping
with the traditional view of handicappers, the physical characteristic,
rather than the clothing, may be considered problematic. Another explana-
tion is that the clothing styles available at the time that the present
research was conducted were more convenient for handicappers than the
apparel which was fashionable during previous research.

Retailers were expected to be unaware of the clothing and accessi-
bility problems of handicappers. Contrarily, rather than underplaying
their significance, retailers magnified those difficulties. Their re-
sponses, however, do not necessarily reflect an awareness of handicapper
needs. Several respondents stated that they felt unqualified to answer
questions about handicapper problems; as a result, they avoided negative
responses to questions regarding clothing and accessibility. Retailers,
assuming that all of the items listed must have been problems for someone,
may have been educated by the questionnaire. In addition, feelings of
social responsibility toward handicappers could have prompted retailers
to respond as they did; the subjects felt that they should be aware of
handicapper problems and overemphasized their importance. Among people
who lack accurate information about the real needs of handicappers,
there is also the tendency to concentrate on deficits and overlook
capabilities.

As expected, most stores were fairly inaccessible to handicappers.
Only eight of the 28 stores reflected efforts to increase accessibility.

No attempts to enhance accessibility were apparent in the other stores.

107

Even minor modifications involving no cost had not been made. Retailers
were either unaware of accessibility requirements or did not care to
meet them.

The educational program to be developed as a result of this research
should promote a realistic understanding of handicappers' needs. Store
accessibility, rather than clothing use and acquisition, should be

emphasized in the program.

 

Recommendations
Because the present study yielded several unexpected results,
additional information is necessary to clarify and explain some of the
findings. The following suggestions should be incorporated into future
studies:
1. Determine handicappers' actual knowledge
of specialized clothing and sources of

information about garment adaptation.

2. Determine why handicappers prefer certain
shopping locations and areas.

3. Examine the accessibility of stores
actually preferred by handicappers.

4. Examine the budgets Of handicappers and
determine how much money is actually
available and/or used for clothing purchases.

5. Determine what clothing problems are
encountered by people who dress and care
for handicappers.

6. Determine retailers' attitudes toward
handicappers.

7. Determine whether and in what manner
retailers' experience in working with
handicappers affects the delivery of services.

8. Examine the accessibility of discount stores
belonging to several companies.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. CORRESPONDENCE

Letter to Validators Of Clothing Concerns List

108
Cooperative Extension Service

. Michigan St0t0 Univmity and 0.8. Department of Agricultuu Coop0reting, East Lansing, Michigan 48824

I Family Living Education

 
 

 

PROGRAMS ARE OPEN TO ALL WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE. COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

April 13. 1979

The Cooperative Extension Service and the Department of Human
Environment and 0esign.are currently involved in a program
concerning the clothing acquisition of handicappers in Michigan.
The aid Of both handicappers and clothingsretailers will enable
Extension personnel to identify the community and individual
needs of handicappers and to develop programs to help meet these
needs. A slide presentation and fashion show will provide

the basis of information to both groups on how the community

can best meet handicapper needs.

As a first step in this project, we have reviewed the literiture
concerning adaptive clothing (including theses, books, Extension
materials, and articles) and have developed a list of handicapper
clothing problems. We would like you, as someone who is know-
ledgeable about the clothing concerns of handicappers, to review
and update the list. For each problem statement, please
indicate by checking the appropriate column whether you have
observed it or are aware of it as a clothing concern; whether
you do not, in your experience, consider it a valid clothing
concern; or whether you are unaware of it as a clothing concern.
Space is provided following each category for comments and for
additional clothing concerns Of which you are aware.

Once this list is validated, it will be used to compare handicappers'
and retailers' perceptions of clothing concerns. We will be
happy to share the completed instrument and the results with you.

Please return the questionnaire in the enclosed, stamped, self-
addressed envelope by Monday, April 30, 1979. Your cooperation
in this project is greatly appreciated.

Y '5 WWW CfiaaguuqthQa-m

e Jacquel n Yep Orlando
Gra uate Assistant Assoc1a e Professor

Human Environment and Design Human Environment and 095190

 

Follow-up Letter to Validators

109

 
 

Cooperative Extension Service
. Michigan State Unlverelty and 0.8. Department of Agriculture Cooperating, East Lansing, Michigan 40824

I Family Living Education

 

PROGRAMS ARE OPEN TO ALL WITHOUT REGARD TO RACE. COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN

May 9, 1979

You recently received a list of handicapper clothing concerns
that you were asked to validate. Although we have had an
excellent response, we would still appreciate the benefit of
your knowledge and input. If you haven't already done so,
please return the list at your earliest convenience. Thank you.

Your truly, ' W M

Ph 11 5 Bell Miller
Associ te Professor Graduate Assistant
Human Environment and Design Human Environment and Design

JYO/cm

 

4AA IIIQIAAI PAAI AA‘: neeee fiat-A nae-eeeAaae A—n—- 1

Letter to Retailers

110
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 48824
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN

Dear Retailer:

The Cooperative Extension Service is currently investigating
the clothing concerns and shopping problems of handicappers,
persons with physical characteristics/disabilities. The study
will result in a community, educational program for retailers
and handicappers.

Your store is among those randomly selected to participate in
this study from all clothing retailers in the tri-county area.
The research will not interfere in any way with your business
or with the routine of your staff.

You will receive a phone call that will provide you with further
information. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated.

h 1115 Bell Miller Dr. cquelyn Orlando
Graduate Assistant Associate Professor
Human Environment and Design Human Environment and Design
mf

MSU is an Alfimau't'e Action/Banal Oemtunirv Institution

APPENDIX B . INSTRUMENTS

Handicapper Questionnaire

111

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN

The Cooperative Extension Service is looking into the clothing and shopping
problems of handicappers, persons with physical characteristics generally
thought to be handicaps or disabilities. The study will result in a
community educational program for handicappers and retailers.

This questionnaire will help us to develop a program that could make shop-
ping easier for you. Please answer all of the questions and return it in
the enclosed envelope.

If you have any questions or need help with the questionnaire, call Phyllis
Miller at 485-8884 or 353-3877. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

yyiis Bell Miller
Graduate Assistant Associate Professor
Human Environment and Design Human Environment and Design

  

Directions: Please indicate your response by checking the appropriate box.

Are you a handicapper?
1 ( ) yes 2 ( ) no

Are you 18 years of age or older?
1 ( ) yes 2 ( ) no

If you answered "yes" to both questions, please complete this questionnaire.
If not, please return the questionnaire so that we may keep a record Of the
number of respondents.

1. Sex:
1 ( ) male 2 ( ) female
2. Age group: 1 ( ) 18-19 years 6 ( ) 55-59 years
2 ( ) 20-24 years 7 ( ) 60-64 years
3 ( ) 25-34 years 8 ( ) 65-74 years
4 ( ) 35-44 years 9 ( ) 75 years and Older
5 ( ) 45-54 years

112

Check the highest level of completed education:
1 ( ) less than eighth grade 5 ( ) Associate or 2-year degree
2 ( ) eighth grade 6 ( ) 4-year college degree
3 ( ) high school or equivalent 7 ( ) advanced degree
4 ( ) some college or business
school
Was (were) your main handicapper characteristic(s): (check only one)

1 ( ) present from birth
2 ( ) acquired during childhood
3 ( ) acquired during adulthood (after age 18)

What are the effects of your characteristic(s)? (check all that
apply)
1 ( ) resistance to movement/body stiffness
2 ( ) limited large-scale movements (of arms or legs)
3 ( ) limited small movements (of hands)
4 ( ) limited complex small movements (or difficulty in gripping
small items with fingers)

S ( ) decreased body awareness (loss of feel in some sections of
the body)
6 ( ) limited sense of balance
7 ( ) limited strength/endurance or general weakness
8 ( ) incontinence (lack of bowel and/or bladder control)
9 ( ) use of ostomy or colostomy bags (feces or urine collection
bags)
10 ( ) decrease in vision (nearsightedness, narrower visual field,
blindness, change in color vision, etc.)
11 ( ) decrease in hearing
12 ( ) dwarfism
13 ( ) paraplegia (loss of use or sensation in lower part of body)
14 ( ) quadriplegia (loss of use of sensation in both arms and
legs)
15 ( ) hemiplegia (loss of use or sensation in right or left side
of body)

16 ( ) modified body shape (forms of scoliosis, lordosis,
kyphosis, etc.)
( ) other (please indicate)
( ) none

 

113

6. Which device(s) do you use? (check all that apply)

crutches
walker
cane
wheelchair -a
motorized scooter (Amigo'b , etc.)
leg braces

arm braces

body brace (Milwaukee, etc.)

back brace or corset
wrist and hand splint
artificial upper limb
artificial lower limb
other (please indicate)

 

none

you usually get dressed? (check only one)
self-help only

self-help with another person assisting
completely dressed by another or others

8. Whe e do you buy most of your clothing? (check only one)

1 ( )
2 ( )
3 ( )
4 ( )
5 ( )
6 ( )
7 ( )
8 ( )
9 ( )
10 ( )
11 ( )
12 ( )
13 ( )
14 ( )
7 How do
1()
2 ( )
3 ( )
r
1 ( )
2 ( )
3 ( )
4 ( )
5 ( )
6 ( )
7 ( )
8 ( )
9 ( )
9.

l ( )
2 ( )
3 ( )
4 ( )
5 ( )
6 ( )
7 ( )
8 ( )

men's clothing store (sells men's clothing items only)

women's clothing store (sells women's clothing items only)

clothing store (sells clothing items for men/women/children
only)

department store (sells clothing and many other items)

discount store (sells a variety of goods and is known for
low prices)

from fabric store as pattern and fabric

mail-order catalogue

custom tailor/dressmaker

other (please indicate)

 

Who selects most of your clothing? (check only one)

self

spouse

relative

friend

self and spouse

self and relative

self and friend

other (please indicate)

 

10.

ll.

12.

13.

114

What transportation do you usually use when you shOp for clothing in
stores? (check only one)
1 ( ) drive self
( ) driven by spouse/relative/friend
( ) special phone-reSponse transportation service
( ) public/city transportation (bus or cab)
( ) on foot, by wheelchair, etc.

£11wa

When you shop for clothing in stores, which type of shopping area
is easiest for you to use? (check only one)
1 ( ) enclosed mall
2 ( ) open mall
3 ( ) concentrated retail area with pedestrian way (downtown-type
shopping area)
4 ( ) auto strip development (suburban-type shopping plaza with a
few stores and a parking area)

Where do you live?
1 ( ) central city and its suburbs (metropolitan area of 50,000 or
more)
2 ( ) small town (population of 100 or more)
3 ( ) open country/rural (non-suburban)
Where are the clothing stores in which you shOp most often? (check
only one)
1 ( ) central city and its suburbs (metropolitan area of 50,000 or
more)
2 ( ) small town (population of 100 or more)
3 ( ) open country/rural (non-suburban)

115

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

'75
“a. :3
a 3 ‘0’, m
Directions: Please place a check in the column which '3) 2, *3, $ 7~
. 7 ‘4 e d a
best answers the follow1ng questions. o o o 3 3
l 2 3 4 Si
14. How often do you encounter the problems below when ;
shopping for clothing? 1
1
a. lack of transportation ;
b. limited access to store (lack of accessible 1
parking, entrances, or elevators; no path 5
ramps in sidewalks, etc.) 1
-- ___ _ -_ -m-_4
c. difficulty in moving through store/clothing
department (because of floor covering, steps,
arrangement of racks and counters, etc.)
.. —-- ___”--.1,
d. difficulty in reaching and/or seeing items
(racks, counters, or displays too high, 1
clothing items awkward to reach alone, etc.)
e. lack of accessible fitting rooms (large
enough to be entered and used by wheelchair
users)
f. inability to try on clothes at all
- --—J.-_q-——.—_—d——q_-.’
g. sales staff not trained to help with handi-
capper clothing problems
_ _ _ _1__ _
15. How often are you able to purchase (from any source)
attractive clothing that suits your needs?
16. How often does clothing that you buy or patterns
need alterations or changes to make them right for
you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

Directions: Below is a list of clothing
problems and concerns that
handicappers may have.
Please place a check in the
column that best describes
your experience.

Appearance

 

1. Clothing especially designed for handicappers is not
similar to those worn by others in social and/or
occupational groups.

 

 

2. Clothing especially designed for handicappers is not
attractively styled.

 

3. Clothing does not minimize or hide physical differ-
ences or assistive devices (braces, artificial limbs,
etc.)_worn underneath them.

 

4. Clothing rides up and is too short when wheelchair
or assistive devices (braces, artificial limbs, etc.)
are used.

._-J

-dl

 

5. Orthopedic or other necessary footwear is not attrac-
tive and/or not suitable with dressier clothing.

 

6. Clothing's fit is unattractive because it is too snug
or tight in areas where assistive devices (braces,
artificial limbs, etc.) are worn.

 

Durability

 

7. Clothing does not last long enough because of the way
it is made.

 

8. Clothing develops holes and snags or wears out easily
in areas that rub against assistive devices (crutches,
braces, artificial limbs, wheelcha;£§,_§tc.).

 

 

------ 1
9. Hems snag on assistive devices (crutches, braces,
artificial limbs, etc.) and pull_out_during walking. __

 

 

Comfort

10. Clothing is not comfortable because of fit, style,

-_--EEEEEE-EZE§; or the_way it is made; _______ +

 

11. Clothing is too snug or tight in areas where assis-
tive devices (braces, artificial limbs, etc.) are

__1,

r— ._--1-

-_‘r

"H.

 

 

 

 

 

WOI’U.

 

___---—---—--—-—-‘D

 

-i

 

 

 

 

117

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
7‘
63
3‘1
<5 bflZ
12. Outerwear (coats, jackets, ponchos, etc.) is too long 3 4 5
and is too bulky under ph§_seat_pf wheelchair u§§£§L—-»-1-+ _’
Dressing and Undressing
13. Dressing and undressing is difficult.
14. Clothing openings are difficu1t_to reach.
15. Sleeve or cuff openings are difficult to reach or to
__ open and close.
16. Clothing is difficult to pull over calipers, artifi-
__ cial limbs, appliances, etc. _$_4
l7. Pant cuff styles are too narrow for easy dressing and
undressing, especially when appliances or assistive
devices (braces, artificial limbs, etc.) are worn. a
18. Fabrics catch on assistive devices (braces, artifi-
cial limbs, etc.) making dressing and undressing more
__ difficult. __fi w
Fasteners
19. Overall, fasteners are a problem because of type,
_ size, shape, etc. = ______ __ __ W
20. Fasteners (buttons, snaps, etc.) are too close
_ together to open or cipse easily. __q_ _
21. Clothing has too many fasteners (buttons, snaps,
_ etc.) and dresgipg_§nd undressing take too long. _ _¢_4_J_J
22. Zipper tab or pull is too small or difficult to E
__ grasp. __ ;_J
23. Zippers are difficult to hold in position while open- 1 1
_ ing or closing. __ _ _____ =_ _=_ _l_._J-J
24. Separating zippers, which unfasten completely, are 1 1
____difficult to joip at_pppppm;_ _ _ __j_J
1 I
25. Hook and loop pressure tape (Velcrofiz etc.) is l J
_ difficult to lip§_up quickly and easily. ________ p_4_4_

GENERAL COMMENTS:

118

 

 

. Buttons are too_§lippgpy to grasp and hgpdlg easily.

 

 

 

 

Size and shape of buttons makes them difficult to
handle.

 

Snaps are difficult to grasp because of their size
and/or shape.

 

Snaps are difficult to open or close.

 

. Laces (on shoes, garments, etc.) are difficult to

thread.

 

 

31. Laces and other tied fasteners (on shoes, garments,
_--_sss;2-§£2-é1§£12212-£2 tie-

Movement

32. Clothing restricts movement because of style, fit

and/or construction.

 

33.

Clothing styles do not have enough room for movement
in sleeve, underarm, chest, or back agea.

 

. Clothing styles are too narrow or tight for easy

self-transfers.

----~_- ---------------- -

37.

38.

 

Clothing styles are too narrow for easy movement
where assistive devices (braces, artificial limbs,
etc.) are worn.

 

Clothing interferes with safety because it is too
tight or too full.

 

 

Fabrics cause body to slip from helper's grasp when
heisg-seszie§_es_££§2§£erredl-

 

 

 

Smooth soles on footwear cause instability, slipping,
or fglls.

 

39.

--------_-----------------_------------------------_-----—-d-

40.

 

Fabrics cause slipping from chair or bed.

Smooth glove palms interfere with grip of cane,
szssshs§l-flhssl§l railings, b§:§;-§t6-

 

'"1

 

 

 

 

 

_J

 

 

 

Retai1er Questionnaire

119

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN 48824
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN

The Cooperative Extension Service is currently examining the cloth-
ing concerns and shopping problems of handicapper shoppers, defined
in this case as persons with physical characteristics generally
thought to be handicaps, disabilities, or limitations. The study
will result in a community, educational program for retailers and
handicapper citizens.

This questionnaire is vital to our research. We need your input to
make this project a success. Please answer all of the questions and
sign the consent form; this is necessary if we are to use your
questionnaire. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

If you have any questions or need assistance in completing the ques-
tionnaire, call 485-8884 or 353-3877 and ask for Phyllis Miller.

71?" W 44 32W CW”

Phy is Bell Miller
Gra uate Assistant Associate Professor
Human Environment and Design Human Environment and Design

Store I.D. #

 

PART I

Directions: Please indicate your response by checking the
apprOpriate box.

1. Sex: 1 ( ) male 2 ( ) female

2. Age group:

1 ( ) 18-19 years 6 ( ) 55-59 years

2 ( ) 20-24 years 7 ( ) 60-64 years

3 ( ) 25-34 years 8 ( ) 65-74 years

4 ( ) 35-44 years 9 ( ) 75 years and over
5 ( ) 45-54 years

120

3. Che k the highest level of completed education:
1 ( ) less than eighth grade
2 (. ) eighth grade
3 ( ) high school or equivalent
4 ( ) some college or business school
5 ( ) Associate or two-year college
6 ( ) four year college degree
7 ( ) advanced degree
4.' What is your primary position? (check only one)
1 ( ) store owner/partner
2 ( ) store manager/assistant manager
3 ( ) buyer/assistant buyer
4 ( ) department manager/supervisor or
assistant department manager/supervisor
5 ( ) salesperson
6 ( ) alterationist
5. How long have you worked in clothing sales?
1 ( ) less than one year
2 ( ) 1-5 years
3 ( ) 5-10 years
4 ( ) 10 years or more
6. How often do you work?
1 ( ) part time
2 ( ) full time

7. Have you assisted a shopper who had any of the following
devices one or more times? (check all that apply)

crutches

wheelchair . Q

motorized scooter (Amigo or other)

walker

cane (for assistance in walking, not vision)
artificial limb (arm(s), leg(s), etc.)

other

have never assisted handicapper shopper

 

8. Do you think that there is a large handicapper clothing

1 ( )
2 ( )
3 ( )
4 ( )
5 ( )
6 ( )
7 ( )
8 ( )
market?
1 ( )
2 ( )

yes
no

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

121

Do you think it is/would be cost effective/profitable to
serve the handicapper market in your community?

1 ( ) yes

2 ( ) no

Do you think that retailers, as a group, are aware of the
clothing needs of handicapper shoppers?

1 ( ) yes

2 ( ) no

Have you ever received training in or information about
assisting handicapper shoppers?

1( )yes
2 ( ) no
Do you see a need for such training? m
1( )yes 2,“;
2 ( ) no p %-3 E‘m
9,.
.g%§%§
How often do you think that handicapper a: “1
shpppers encounter the problems below? 1 2 3 4 5_

 

a. lack of transportation

 

b. limited access to store (lack of accessible
parking, entrances, elevators; no path ramps
in sidewalks, etc.)

 

c. difficulty in moving through store/clothing
department (because of floor covering, steps,
arrangement of racks and counters, etc.)

 

d. difficulty in reaching and/or seeing items
(racks, counters, or displays too high, cloth-
ing items awkward to reach alone, etc.)

 

e. lack of accessible fitting rooms (large enough
to be entered and used by wheelchair users)

 

f. inability to try on clothes at all

 

— _ I_-1

g. sales staff not trained to help with handi-
capper clothing problems

—4

 

How often do you think that handicapper shoppers
are able to purchase garments that are attractive,
suitable, and that fit their need?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-_-—----— ------- lb— -— — -—Jb—J

 

122

PART II

Directions: Below is a list of clothing

problems and concerns that handicappers

may have. Please check the appropriate
box to indicate how much of a problem

you think each items is for handicappers.

Appearance

 

1.

Clothing especially design for handicappers
is not similar to those worn by others in

____social and/or occupational groups.

 

 

2.

Clothing especially designed for handicappers
is not attractively styled.

 

3.

Clothing does not minimize or hide physical
differences or assistive devices (braces,
artificial limbs, etc.) worn underneath them.

 

4.

Clothing rides up and is too short when
wheelchair or assistive devices (braces,
artificial limbs, etc.) are used.

 

5.

Orthopedic or other necessary footwear is
not attractive and/or not suitable with
dressier clothing.

 

6.

Clothing's fit is unattractive because it is
too snug or tight in areas where assistive
devices (braces, artificial limbs, etc.) are
worn.

 

Durabilipy

7.

Clothing does not last long enough because
of the way it is made.

 

8.

Clothing develops holes and snags or wears

out easily in areas that rub against assis-
tive devices (crutches, braces, artificial

limbs, wheelchairs, etc.)

 

Hems snag on assistive devices (crutches,
braces, artificial limbs, etc.) and pull out
during walking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-1

123

Comfort

10.

Clothing is not comfortable because of fit,
style, fabric type, or the way it is mpde.

 

 

11.

Clothing is too snug or tight in areas
where assistive devices (braces, artificial
limbs, etc.) are worn.

 

12.

 

Outerwear (coats, jackets, ponchos, etc.) is
too long and is too bulky under the seat of
wheelchair users.

 

Dressing and Undressing

 

13.

Dressing and undressing is difficult.

 

 

1&-

Clothing openings are difficult to reach.

 

15.

Sleeve or cuff openings are difficult to reach
or to open and close.

 

16.

Clothing is difficult to pull over calipers,
artificial limbs, appliances, etc.

 

 

 

l7.

Pant cuff styles are too narrow for easy dress-
ing and undressing, especially when appliances

or assistive devices (braces, artificial limbs,
etc.) are worn.

 

18.

Fabrics catch on assistive devices (braces,
artificial limbs, etc.), making dressing and
undressing more=gifficult.

 

Fasteners

19.

Overall, fasteners are a problem because of
pype, size, shape, etp.

—-J

IP-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-_J-..J

b’d

124

Fasteners (buttons, snaps, etc.) are too close
together to open or close easily.

 

 

Clothing has too many fasteners (buttons,
snaps, etc.) and dressing and undressing
takes too long.

 

Zipper tab or pull is too small or difficult
to grasp.

 

Zippers are difficult to hold in position
while openings or closing.

 

 

. Separating zippers, which unfasten completely,

are difficult to join at the bottom.

 

GD

 

 

 

 

25. Hook and loop pressure tape (Velcro , etc.) is

__ difficult to line up quickly and easily. _4

26. Buttons are too slippery to grasp and handle

__ 888112 . 1;.”
27. Size and shape of buttons makes them difficult

_ to handle. ____ _ =

28. Snaps are difficult to grasp because of their

__ size and/or shape. __ ”_4_fi
29. Snaps are difficult to open or close.

 

 

. Laces (on shoes, garments, etc.) are difficult

to thread.

 

31.

____garments, etc.) are difficult to tie.

Laces and other tied fasteners (on shoes,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125

Movement

32. Clothing restricts movement because of style,
fit, and/or construction.

 

 

33. Clothing styles do not have enough room for
movement in sleeve, underarm, chest, or back
area.

 

34. Clothing styles are too narrow or tight for
easy self-transfers.

 

35. Clothing styles are too narrow for easy move-
ment where assistive devices (braces, artificial
limbs, etc.) are worn.

 

Safety

36. Clothing interferes with safety because it is
too tight or too full.

 

37. Fabrics cause body to slip from helper's grasp
when being carried or transferred.

 

38. Smooth soles on footwear cause instability,
slipping, or falls.

 

39. Fabrics cause slipping from=phair or bed.

 

40. Smooth glove palms interfere with grip of cane,
crutches, whgels, railings, bars, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Retail Clothing Store Accessibility Checklist

126

RETAIL CLOTHING STORE ACCESSIBILITY CHECKLIST

1. Store Identification

A.

. Name of store I.D. #

 

Address

 

City Zip

 

County

 

Telephone

 

Store contact person

 

\smm-wa—n

Department contact Ext.

Type of store:

1 [ ] Men's specialty store

2 [ ] Women's specialty store
3 [ ] Clothing/specialty store
4 [ ] Department store

5 [ 1 Discount store

6 [ ] Other

 

1
Location of store:
l [ ] On street in an auto strip development

2 [ ] 0n street in a concentrated retail area with pedestrian
way

3 [ ] Within an open mall
4 [ ] Within an enclosed mall
5 [ ] Other

 

Area surrounding store:

1 [ ] Central city and its suburbs (metropolitan area of
50,000 or more)

2 [ ] Small town (population of l00 or more)
3 [ ] Open country/rural (non-suburban)

l. Department:
l [ ] Men's 2 [ 1 Women's 3 [ ] Not applicable
2. Number of personnel:

 

3. Questionnaires distributed:

 

II.

127

Parking and Public Way Access

A.

Is handicapper designated parking available?
1 [ ] Yes

2 [ ] No

If yes:

a.

Are the parking spaces signed as reserved for handicappers?
l [ ] Yes

2 [ ] No

Are all of the spaces at least 12 feet wide?

1 [ ] Yes

2 [ ] No

Are the required number of parking spaces available (check

1'5t below)? Total Parking Spaces Required Number of
l [ ] Yes in Lot Accessible Spaces

2 [ ] No Up to 25 1
26 to 50
51 to 75

76 to 100

101 to 150

151 to 200

201 to 300

301 to 400

401 to 500

501 to 1000 2% of total

Over 1000 20 plus l for each
100 over 1000

How far are the accessible spaces located from the
accessible entrance?

1 [ ] 300 feet or more
2 [ ] 200-299 feet

3 [ ] 100-199 feet

4 [ J 99 feet or less

\O®NO\U‘I#WN

Is the surface of the parking lot smooth and hard (no sand,
gravel, etc.)?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

128

II. Parking and Public Way Access (continued)

C.

Is the surface of all of the handicapper slots level or sloped
less than 2% (1 unit in 50)?

l [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

Where is parking provided?

1 [ ] 0n street

2 [ ] Parking structure/garage
3 [ ] Lot

Are the accessible parking area and building separated by a
street or other line of motorized travel?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

Is the route from the handicapper-desi nated parking area to
the public way free from obstructions Ii.e. bollards, bumper
blocks, pedestrian overpasses, railroad tracks, gateways,
steps, steep inclines)?

l [ ] Yes
2[ ]No'
a. If yes, how?
1 [ ] Curb cut
2 [ ] Open and path ramped to store
3 [ ] Open and grade level to store
b. If a path ramp is provided:
i. What is the gradient of the ramp?
1 [ 1 More than 1 unit in 12
2 [ ] 1 unit in 12 or less
3 [ ] 1 unit in 15 or less
ii. Is the ramp 5 feet or wider over its entire run?
1 [ ] Yes
2 [ J No

c. Are there signs designating the barrier-free route to the
accessible entrance?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

129

III. Approach to Building/Store/Shopping Mall

A.

Is there a passenger loading zone for cars?
l [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

Is there a passenger loading zone for public transit?
1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

What type of approach to building entrance area is provided?
1 [ ] Steps

2 [ ] Path ramp

3 [ ] Grade level

4 [ ] Other

 

a. If a ramp is provided:
i. Is is properly signed?
1 [ ] Yes
2 [ J No

ii. Is the width of the ramp 5 feet along its entire
run? '

l [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No
iii. What is the gradient of the ramp?
1 [ ] More than 1 unit in 12
2 [ ] 1 unit in 12 or less
3 [ ] 1 unit in 15 or less
b. If there are steps:

1. Is there a handrail on at least one side or in the
center?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ J No

ii. Is/are handrail(s) 30-33 inches in height, measured
from the surface of the steps?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

130

IV. Malls - Line of Travel - Complete only if store is located in an
open or enclosed mall.

A. Open mall

a:

Is the path through the mall from parking to store grade
level, sloped, and/or ramped when there are changes in
level?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

Is the route from handicapped—designated parking to the
store fairly direct when compared to the usual foot path?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

B. Enclosed mall

a.

Is there an accessible building entrance or one so
designated?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No
i. If yes, what is the primary use of accessible
entrance?

1 [ ] Service
2 [ J General public/shoppers
What type of doors are present?
1 [ ] Revolving
2 [ ] Hinged
3 [ ] Sliding
4 [ ] Automatic hinged
5 [ ] Automatic sliding

Does doorway have a clear open width of 33.5 inches or
more? '

l [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

Do doors require more or less than 6.6 to 8.8 pounds of
pull to open?

1 [ ] Yes
2 [ ] No

IV.

131

Malls - Line of Travel (continued)

B.

e. Are there doors in series?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
If'yes:
i. Is there a B.C.F.A. (basic clear floor area) of 63
inches between doors clear of any door swing?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
ii. Does second door have a clear open width of 33.5
inches or more?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
iii. Does second door require more or less than 6.6 to

8.8 pounds of pull to open?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

f. What type of handle/opener does each door have?

1.

ii.

Ingoing door(s)

l [ J Plain, round knob
2 [ J Knurled knob

3 [ J Lever

4 [ J Stirrup

5 [ J Automatic
Outgoing door(s)

l [ J Plain, round knob
2 [ J Knurled knob

3 [ J Lever

4 [ J Panic bar

5 [ ] Flat push bar (Van Dupren style)
6 [ J Automatic

IV.

132

Malls - Line of Travel (continued)

C.

Floor of entrance
a. Does the entrance have:
1 [ J Two or more steps
2 [ J One step
3 [ J Ramp
4 [ J Incline
5 [ J Threshold, unbeveled on one or both edges
6 [ J Threshold, beveled on both edges
7 [ J Level area for 63 inches on both sides of door
b. If a ramp is present:
i. What is the gradient?
1 [ J More than 1 unit in 12
2 [ J 1 unit in 12 or less
3 [ J 1 unit in 15 or less

ii. Is the ramp at least 5 feet wide along its entire
run?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Is the route through the mall to the store or to the
provision for level changes (i.e., elevator, stairs) grade
level?

-1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

a. If no, what provision is made for level changes in most
cases (check one)?

1 [ J Steps
2 [ J Inclinator

3 [ J Path ramps (gradient of 1 unit in 12 or less):
4 [ J Sloped floor (gradient of 1 unit in 20 or less)
5 [ J Other

 

IV.

133

Malls - Line of Travel (continued)

E.

Predominate floor covering along lines of travel:

1 [ J Carpeting with padding and/or with pile of more than
1/4 inch

2 [ J Carpeting without padding and/or with pile of 1/4
inch or less

3 [ J Tile
4 [ J Wood or cement

Is the store in question located on an accessible entrance
level?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

a. If no, what provisions are made to provide access to the
level on which the store is located? (If more than one
means of circulation exists, check the one that appears
lowest on the list)

1 [ J Stairs/steps

2 [ J Escalator

3 [ J Lift

4 [ J Inclinator

5 [ J Elevator

6 [ J Ramp(s) (gradient of 1 unit in 12 or less)

7 [ J Sloping floor (gradient of 1 unit in 20 or less)

b. If there is an elevator, what features does it have
(check all that apply)

1 [ J Minimum clear open door width of 36 inches

2 [ J Clear cab area of 25 square feet, with a minimum
of 51 inches from rear cab wall to inside face
of car door

3 [ J Buttons in corridor not more than 47 7/16 inches
above floor

4 [ J Dual set of cab control buttons, with the higher '
set at 59 inches above the floor and the lower
set at 29.5 inches above the floor

5 [ J Automatic doors with safety shoe reversing device,
light ray door reversing device or other type of
proximity-sensing reversing device

134

Entrance to Store - If there is a particular entrance that is
designated as or is said to be accessible, use it in your
evaluation.

A.

Type of store entrance:
1 [ J Doors
2 [ J Open front (as in enclosed mall)

If there are doors:

a.

What type?
1 [ J Revolving
2 [ J Hinged

3 [ J Sliding

4 [ J Automatic hinged

5 [ J Automatic sliding

Does door have at least 33.5 inches of clear open width?
1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

Does door require more or less than 6.6 to 8.8 pounds of
pull to open?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

Are there doors in series?
1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

If'yes:

1. Is there a B.C.F.A. or 36 inches squared between
doors clear of any door swing?

l [ J Yes
2 [ J No

ii. Does the second door have at least 33.5 inches of
clear open width?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

iii. Does the second door require more or less than 6.6
to 8.8 pounds of pull to open?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

135

V. Entrance to Store (continued)

B. e. What type of handle/opener does each door have?
i. Ingoing door(s):
l [ J Plain, round knob
2 [ J Knurled knob
3 [ J Lever
4 [ J Stirrup
5 [ J Automatic
6 [ J Other

 

ii. Outgoing door(s):
l [ J Plain, round knob
2 [ J Knurled knob
3 [ J Lever
4 [ ] Panic bar
5 [ J Flat push bar (Van Dupren style)
6 [ J Automatic
7 [ J Other

 

C. Floor of entrance/doorway:
l [ J Two or more steps
2 [ J One step
3 [ J Ramp (gradient of 1 unit in 12 or less)
4 [ J Incline
5 [ J Threshold unbeveled on one or both edges
6 [ J Threshold beveled on both edges
7 [ J Level for 63 inches on both sides of door

VI.

136

Access to Levels within the Store

A.

Type of building:
1 [ J Multi-story
2 [ J Split-level
3 [ J Single story

Are all clothing (men's and women's wear) and facilities
used by customers (restrooms, cutomer services, etc.) located
on the accessible entrance level?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

If yes, proceed to Section VII.

If no, complete remainder of this section.

What kind of circulation is provided between levels (if more
than one check the one that appears lowest on the list)?

1 [ J Stairs/steps

2 [ J Escalator

3 [ J Lift

4 [ J Inclinator

5 [ J Elevator(s) (see Part E)

6 [ J Ramp(s) (see Part D)

7 [ J Sloping floor (gradient of 1 unit in 20 or less)

Interior ramps

a. Are ramps properly signed?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

b. Approximate gradient of ramp:
1 [ J More than 1 unit in 12
2 [ J 1 unit in 12 or less
3 [ J 1 unit in 15 or less

137

VI. Access to Levels within the Store (continued)

0. c.

Surface of ramp:

1 [ J Carpeting with padding and/or with pile of more
than 1/4 inch

2 [ J Carpeting without padding and/or with pile of
1/4 inch or less

3 [ J Tile
4 [ J Wood or cement
Are handrails present?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

If yes:

i. Is handrail height 31.5 to 33.5 inches from ramp
surface?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
ii. Are the handrails smooth, without sharp edges?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

iii. Do the handrails extend 18" beyond the top and
bottom of the ramp and return to walls or posts
at the ends?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

iv. Is there a landing at all ramp points of turning,
entrance, exiting, and doors?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

E. Elevators

a.

Is there an elevator on an accessible level?

1 [ J Yes

2 I I No .

Is there an elevator designated as accessible?
1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

VI.

138

Access to Levels within the Store (continued)

E.

C.

Primary use of accessible elevator:
l [ J Passenger
2 [ J Freight

Must another person be contacted prior to each use of
the accessible elevator?

l [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Does accessible elevator serve all levels used by
customers?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
Elevator design (check all that apply):

1 [ J All buttons in corridor not more than 47 7/16
inches above floor

2 [ J Minimum clear open door width of 36 inches

3 [ J Clear cab area of 25 square feet, with a minimum
of 15 inches from rear cab wall to inside face
of car door

4 [ J Dual set of control buttons inside cab

5 [ J Higher set of control buttons at 59 inches above
floor

6 [ J Lower set of control buttons at 29.5 inches above
the floor

7 [ J Metal, braille or tactile numbers provided
adjacent to cabin control buttons and switches

8 [ J Metal, braille or tactile numbers provided for
floor designation on each floor

9 [ J Visual, floor level indicator

lO [ J Audible gong when elevator lands on level where

an accessible entrance is located
J Audible, floor level indicator

12 [ J Automatic doors, with safety shoe reversing

device ggg_a light ray door reversing device or
other type of proximity-sensing reversing device

13 [ J At least one handrail in cab
14 [ J Handrail height of 31.5 to 33.5 inches above floor

139
VII. Clothing Sales Area

A. Furnishings
a. Are all counters 34 inches high or less?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
i. If no, how many are more than 34 inches high?
1 [ J 75-100%
2 [ J 50-74%
3 [ J 25-49%
4 [ J Less than 25%
b. Are all clothing racks 52 inches high or less?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
i. If no, how many are more than 52 inches high?
1 [ J 75-100%
2 [ J 50-74%
3 [ J 25-49%
4 [ J Less than 25%
c. Are all display shelves 52 inches high or less?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
i. If no, how many are more than 52 inches high?
1 [ J 75-100%
2 [ J 50-74%
3 [ J 25-49%
4 [ J Less than 25%

d. Are all open stock displays (e.g. merchandise stored
and displayed on walls, racks, etc.) 52 inches in
height or less?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

VII.

140

Clothing Sales Area (continued)

A. d. i. If no, how many are more than 52 inches in height?
1 [ J 75-100%
2 [ J 50-74%
3 [ J 25-49%
4 [ J Less than 25%
B. Aisles
a. Do major aisles have a clear width of 63 inches or more?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
b. 00 minor aisles have a clear width of at least 40 inches?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
c. Are there at least 63 square inches for turning around
at the end of closed aisles?
l [ J Yes
2 [ J No
d. Are there at least 43.3 inches for turning and access to

other areas at the ends of open aisles?
l [ J Yes
2 [ J No

C. Access within Department

a.

Floor covering along lines of travel within clothing area:

1 [ J Carpeting with padding and/or a pile of more than
1/4 inch

. 2 [ J Carpeting without padding and/or a pile of l/4

inch or less
3 [ J Tile
4 [ J Wood or cement
Is the floor level within the clothing area?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

VII.

141

Clothing Sales Area (continued)

C. b.

i.

ii.

If no, what features accommodate level changes?
1 [ J Steps
2 [ J Ramp (gradient of 1 unit in 12 or more)

3 [ J Sloping floor (gradient of 1 unit in 20 or
more

If a ramp is present, what is its surface?

1 [ J Carpeting with padding and/or a pile of
more than 1/4 inch

2 [ J Carpeting without padding and/or a pile of
1/4 inch or less

3 [ J Tile
4 [ J Wood or cement

D. Fitting area

Is there a handicapper-designated fitting room (if yes,
refer to it when answering the questions below)?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

Entrance to fitting room(s):

1 [ J Through a corridor

2 [ J Directly from sales floor
If entry is through a corridor:

a.

i.

ii.

iii.

Does corridor entrance have at least 32 inches
clear width?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Is there a B.C.F.A. of 53 inches for turning into
the corridor?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

Is corridor at least 40 inches wide?
1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

VII.

142

Clothing Sales Area (continued)

E.

F.

Fitting room closures

a.

a.

Does fitting room entrance have at least 33.5 inches
clear width?

1 [ J Yes

2 [ J No

Type of closure on fitting room:

1 [ J None (no provision for privacy)
2 [ J Door

3 [ J Sliding door

4 [ J Saloon doors (shutters)

5 [ J Curtain(s)

Do(es) door(s) open:

1 [ J Toward fitting room interior
2 [ J Toward aisle or sales floor

i. If door opens towards outside of room, are there
63 inches of clearance to get around the door and
into the room?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

ii. If door opens toward room interior, are there 63
square inches of clearance to get inside room
and to close the door?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
Type of hardware on fitting room closure:
1 [ J Round knob
2 [ J Lever
3 [ J Stirrup handle
4 [ J None needed
5 [ J Other

 

Fitting room interior

Is clear floor space in fitting room 53 square inches?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

143

VII. Clothing Sales Area (continued)

F.

b.

Are clothes hooks 40 inches from floor or less?
1 [ J Yes i
2 [ J No

Is a chair, shelf, or other surface for parcels avail-
able?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

i. If yes, is this surface 47 7/16 inches or less
from the floor?

1 [ J Yes _
2 [ J No

Is there a full length mirror, extending as low as 15
inches from floor?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
Floor surface:

1 [ J Carpeting with padding and/or pile of more than
1/4 inch

2 [ J Carpeting without padding and/or a pile of 1/4
inch or less

3 [ J Tile
4 [ J Wood or cement

Alternative fitting areas

If standard fitting rooms are not design-balanced (accord-
ing to the above fitting area and fitting room criteria),
is there some alternative fitting area?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

144

VII. Clothing Sales Area (continued)

G. If yes:
Facilities in this area (check all that apply)

a.

b.

1|:
2L

3L

4L
5L

6L
7L

8E
9E
10 [

J Clothes hooks 40 inches or less from floor

J Parcel shelf or surface 47 7/16 inches or less
from floor

J Full-length mirror that extends to within 15
inches from floor

J Floor area of at least 53 square inches

J Door or other partition to conceal customer
from passing public or staff

J Flooring of wood, cement, or low pile/low
padding carpet

J Clean floor, without sticky wax buildup, dirt,
etc.

J Adequate lighting (daylight conditions)
J Surface for sitting (chair, dressing bench, etc.)
J Other

 

If no accessible dressing room exists, can other arrange-
ments be made for trying on, taking garment on approval,
etc., without purchasing?

1[
2E

J Yes
J No

VIII.

145

Check Out/Purchasing Area

A.

Is counter 34 inches or less in height?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Does checkout area utilize checkout lanes?
1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

a. If yes, is at least one checkout lane at least 40 inches
wide?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Does checkout area utilize turnstiles?
l [ J Yes
2 [ J No

a. If yes, is there a clearly marked, adjacent alternate
and independent access route which is at least 40 inches
wide?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

IX.

146

Customer Service Area

A.

Is customer service area (layaway, adjustment department,
cashier's office, etc.) on accessible entrance level or
accessible by elevator, ramp, etc.?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Is a writing surface of 34 inches or less in height
provided?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Is window/counter, etc. at which business is conducted 40
inches or less in height, providing the handicapper a
clear view of the transaction?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No

Are wheelchairs available for customer use in the store
here or elsewhere in the store?

1 [ J Yes
2 [ J No
Res trooms :

1 [ J No restroom(s) available for customer use
2 [ J Restroom(s) available but not accessible
3 [ J Accessible unisex restroom

4 [ J Accessible, separate facilities for men and women
(if specialty store, accessible facility for the
gender served)

Retail Clothing Store Rating System

147

Retail Clothing Store Rating System

Pointa Optimalb

Value Value

 

I. Store Identification

C. Store Location 49
1. auto strip 49
2. retail area 49
3. open mall 47
4. enclosed mall O ______.
TOTAL 3 (Store Location Accessibility) 49

11. Parking and Public Way Access
A. Handicapper Parking

1. yes 1 1
2. no 0
a. signed spaces
1. yes 1 1
2. no 0
b. space width
1. yes 1 l
2. no 0
c. required number
1. yes 1 1
2. no 0
d. distance 3
l. 300 ft. or more 0
2. 200-299 ft. 1
3. 100-199 ft. 2
4. 99 ft. or less 3
B. Lot Surface ‘
1. yes 1 1
2. no 0
C. Lot Slope 1
1. yes 1
2. no 0

3Points assigned to each of them

Total possible points for items, sections contributing to the maximal
rating.

148

Parking Area

1. street
2. structure/garage
3. lot

Motorized Travel

1. yes
2. no

Obstruction - Free Route

1. yes
2. no

a. yes
1. curb cut
2. ramped
3. grade level
b. ramp
i. ramp gradient
' l. more than 1:12
2. 1:12 or less
3. 1:15 or less
ii. adequate ramp width
1. yes
2. no
c. barrier - free route signs
1. yes
2. no

TOTAL 1 (Parking/Public Way Accessibility)

III. Approach to Building/Store/Shopping Mall

A.

Car Loading Zone

1. yes
2. no

Public Transit Loading Zone

1. yes
2. no
Approach
1. steps
2. ramp

3. grade level

 

Pointa Optimalb
Value Value
2
O
l
2
l
O
l
l
1
O
5
O
1
5
O
l
2
l
O
1
l
O
__T§__.
1
l
O
l
1
O
8
O
l
8

149

4. Other
a. ramp
i. signed
1. yes
2. no
ii. adequate width
1. yes
2. no
b. steps
i. handrail
1. yes
2. no
ii. adequate handrail height
1. yes
2. no

TOTAL 2 (Building Approach Accessibility)

IV. Malls - Line of Travel

A. Open Mall
1. level path

a. yes
b. no

2. direct route

a. yes
b. no
TOTAL 4 (Open Mall Accessibility)

B. Enclosed Mall
1. acccessible entrance

a. yes
b. no
i. if yes, entrance's use:
1. service
2. general public
2. doors
a. revolving
b. hinged
c. sliding
d. automatic hinged
e. automatic sliding

Pointa Optimal
Value Value

b

 

0

0—4

Oc—J

#wN—‘O

10

6.

150

adequate doorway width

a. yes
b. no

heavy/light door pressure

a. yes
b. no

doors in series

a. yes
b. no
If yes:
i. adequate B.C.F.A.
1. yes
2. no
ii. 2nd door: adequate width
1. yes
2. no
iii. 2nd door: heavy/light pressure
1. yes
2. no

door handles

i. ingoing

. round knob

. knurled knob
. lever
stirrup

. automatic

utgoing

round knob
knurled knob
lever handle
panic bar
push bar

. automatic

ii.

mthN=JO Ul-pr—1

C. Floor of Entrance

1.

entrance has

steps

one step

ramp

incline

. unbeveled threshold
. beveled threshold
level

LD-thQOO'DI

 

Pointa Optimalb
Value Value
1
l
1
0
l
4
O
4
l
O
l
O
O
l
4
O
l
2
3
5
5
O
l
‘ 2
3
4
5
9
O
l
2
6
7
8
9

151

Pointa Optimalb
Value Value

 

2. ramp:

i. gradient
1. more than 1:12 0
2. 1:12 or less 1
3. 1:15 or less 2

ii. adequate width
1. yes 1
2. no 0
TOTAL 5 (Mall Entrance Accessibility) 30

Accessible Mall Route 4

1. yes
2. no
a. provision for level change
. steps
. inclinator
. ramp (1:13 gradient)
. sloped floor
. other

m-bva-J
owN—Jo 04>

Flooring 3

1. thick carpeting
2. thin carpeting
3. tile

4. wood or cement

(JON-JO

Store on Accessible Entrance Level 12

1. yes
2. no
a. if no, means of circulation
l. stairs/steps
2. escalator
3. lift
4. inclinator
5. elevator
6
7
e
l

-—l

. ramp (1:12 gradient)
. sloping floor
1 vator
. adequate door width
2. adequate cab area
3. low call buttons
4. dual cab controls
5. automatic doors
TOTAL 6 (Mall Interior Accessibility) 19

-‘O#wN-‘O ON

“A

b.

_J—lc—J—lu—l

152

V. Store Entrance

A. Type
1. doors
2. open front
B. If doors:
1. type
a. revolving
b. hinged
c. sliding
d. automatic hinged
e. automatic sliding
2. adequate width
a. yes
b. no
3. heavy/light pressure
a. yes
b. no
4. doors in series
a. yes
b. no
i. adequate B.C.F.A.
1. yes
2. no
ii. 2nd door: adequate width
1. yes
2. no
ii. 2nd door: heavy/light pressure
1. yes
2. no
5. door handles

1. ingoing
1. round knob
2. knurled knob
3. lever
4. stirrup
5. automatic
6. other
ii. outgoing
. round knob
. knurled knob
. lever
panic bar
. push bar

U‘lth-J

Pointa Optimal
Value Value

b

 

A

O—‘ #0

DOOM-“O waN—‘O

19

153

6. automatic
7. other

Entrance Floor:

1
2
3
4.
5.
6.
7
0

steps

one step

ramp (1:12 gradient)
incline

unbeveled threshold
beveled threshold
level

T TAL 7 (Store Entrance Accessibility)

VI. Access to Levels Within the Store

A.

Building Type:

multi-story

2: split-level
3. single story
All clothing/facilities on entrance level
1. yes
2. no
Circulation
1. steps
2. escalator
3. lift
4. inclinator
5. elevator
6. ramp(s)
7. leping floor
Interior ramps
1. signed
a. yes
b. no
2. gradient
a. more than 1:12
b. 1:12 or less
c. 1:15 or less
3. surface

a. thick carpeting
b. thin carpeting

Pointa Optimal

Value Value

b

 

5
2

N-‘O O‘U‘l-wa—‘O

bNWWN—‘O

N—J

25

25

154

c. tile
d. wood or cement
4. handrails

a. yes
b. no
i. adequate height
1. yes
2. no
ii. smooth
1. yes
2. no
iii. adequate length
1. yes
2. no
iv. landing
1. yes
2. no

TOTAL 8 (Store Level Accessibility)

Elevators

l. elevator on accessible level
a. yes
b. no

2. accessible elevator
a. yes
b. no

3. primary use
a. yes
b. no

4. must contact employee to use
a. yes
b. no

5. serves all levels
a. yes
b. no

6. elevator design

low call buttons

adequate door width

. adequate cab area

dual cab controls

high cab controls

low cab controls

tactile cab control designations
tactile floor designations
visual floor indicator

d-J'LO mm 0.0 crno

Pointa Optimal
Value Value

b

 

2
3

1
0

O--' O—‘ O—‘

o—‘

—l

A

._Jc—l—ul—l—lc—Ju—J—l—J

 

27

14

wc—u -- 3'10

155

. audible floor indicator
audible gong
proximity-sensing doors
handrail
adequate handrail height

TOTAL 9 (Store Elevator Accessibility)

VII. Clothing Sales Area

A. Furnishings

1.

low counters
a. yes
b. no
i. too high
1. 75-100%
2. 50-74%
3. 25-49%
4. less than
low racks
a. yes
b. no
i. too high
1. 75-100%
2. 50-74%
3. 25-49%
4. less than
low shelves
a. yes
b. no
i. too high
1. 75-100%
2. 50-74%
3. 25-49%
4. less than
low displays
a. yes
b. no
i. too high
1. 75-100%
2. 50-74%
3. 25-49%
4. less than

TOTAL 10 (Clothing Area

25%

25%

25%

25%
Furnishings Access)

 

 

Pointa Optimalb

Value Value
1
l
l
l
l

19

4
4
O
O
l
2
3

4
4
O
O
l
2
3

4
4
O
O
l
2
3

4
4
O
O
l
2
3

16

156

Pointa Optimalb

Value Value

 

B. Aisles

l. wide major aisles l
a. yes
b. no
2. wide minor aisles l
a. yes
b. no
3. closed aisle turns 1
a. yes
b. no
4. open aisle turns ‘ l
a. yes
b. no

O—" 0"” O—‘

O—J

C. Access within department

1. floor covering 3
a. thick carpeting
b. thin carpeting
c. tile
d. wood or cement
2. level floor
a. yes
b. no
1. level change accomodations
1. steps
2. ramp (1:12 gradient)
3. sloping floor
ii. ramp
1. thick carpeting
2. thin carpeting
3. tile
4. wood or cement
TOTAL 11 (Clothing Area Accessibility) 13

U'I—‘O om DON—‘0

(”N—'0

D. Fitting Area

1. handicapper room .1
a. yes
b. no
2. entrance
a. through corridor
b. from sales floor
i. adequate corridor width
1. yes
2. no
ii. adequate turning B.C.F.A. in corridor
1. yes
2. no

O—‘ 450 O-"

O—J

157

iii. adequate corridor width
1. yes
2. no

E. Fitting Room Closures

1.

adequate door width
a. yes

b. no

closure

a. none

b. door

c. sliding door

d. saloon doors

e. curtain(s)

door direction

a. toward interior
b. toward exterior

i. exterior door turning B.C.F.A.

1. yes
2. no
ii. interior door B.C.F.A.
1. yes
2. no
door hardware
. round knob
lever
stirrup handle
none needed
none

(DQOU'Q'

F. Fitting Room Interior

1.

adequate B.C.F.A.
a. yes

b. no

low hooks

a. yes

b. no

parcel surface

a. yes

b. no

low mirror

a. yes

b. no

floor covering

a. thick carpeting
b. thin carpeting

Pointa Optimal
Value Value

b

 

A

do OWN—‘0 O—-’

O—l

NOON—‘0 O-—'

O—-' O--' O--‘

—-'O o_:

10

G.

158

c. tile
d. wood or cement

TOTAL 12 (Fitting Area Accessibility)

Alternative Fitting Areas

1. yes
2. no

a. facilities
low hook(s)
parcel surface
low mirror
adequate floor area
partition/door
accessible flooring
. clean floor
adequate lighting
seat
. other

OO®VO§W¢WNfl

-—5

TOTAL 13 (Alternative Fitting Area)

3. other arrangements

1. yes
2. no

TOTAL 14 (Store Cooperativeness)

VIII.Check Out/Purchasing Area

A.

Low counter(s)

1. yes
2. no
Checkout lanes
1. yes
2. no
a. alternate route
1. yes
2. no
Turnstiles
1. yes
2. no
a. alternate route
1. yes
2. no

TOTAL 15 (Purchasing Area Accessbility)

Pointa Optimal
Value Value

b

 

2
3

ou—l

d—J—l—J—dc—J—lu—l—J—J

OU‘I

#

O—l

N—J

d

 

10

m—J

159

Pointa Optimalb
Value Value

 

Customer Service Area

A. Accessible location 1
1. yes 1
2. no 0

B. Low writing desk 1
1. yes 1
2. no 0

C. Low window 1
1. yes 1
2. no 0

D. Wheelchairs available 1
1. yes 1
2. no 0

E. Restrooms 2
1. none 0
2. available but inaccessible O
3. accessible, unisex l
4 accessible, separate facilities 2

TOTAL 16 (Customer Service Accessibility) 6
TOTAL 17 = TOTALS 3 + 4 (Outdoor Mall Accessibility 49

TOTAL 18 = TOTALS 3 + 5 + 6 (Enclosed Mall 49
Accessibility)

TOTAL 19 = TOTALS 7 + 8 + 9 (Store Entrance/ 71
Circulation Accessibility)

TOTAL 20 = TOTALS 10 + 11 + 12 + 13 + 14 (C1othing 71
Sales Area Accessibility)

TOTAL 21 = TOTALS 15 + 16 (Customer Service 11
Accessibility)

TOTAL 22 = Sum of TOTALS l-l6 (Total Store

Accessibility) 280

Consent Form

160

CONSENT FORM

 

I have read the description of the project and am fully
aware of its purpose and the intended use of the results .
I have been given the opportunity to ask further questions
about the details and the procedures of the study and have
had them answered to my satisfaction. I also understand
that my anonymity is guaranteed and that I may withdraw

from the project at any time.

 

Date Signed

APPENDIX C. PARTICIPATING HANDICAPPER AGENCIES

161

PARTICIPATING HANDICAPPER AGENCIES

Center of Handicapper Affairs
1026 East Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48912

Easter Seal Society of Ingham County
2901 Wabash Road
Lansing, MI 48910

March of Dimes, Capital Chapter
500 South Capitol
Lansing, MI 48910

Multiple Sclerosis Society, Central Michigan Chapter
1436 Wellington
Lansing, MI 48910

Muscular Dystrophy Association, South-Central Michigan Chapter
6425 South Pennsylvania, Suite 10
Lansing, MI 48910

National Association of the Physically Handicapped, Inc.,
Michigan Area Chapter

c/o Mr. Walter A. Girard, President

2941 Kent Court

Trenton, MI 48183

Office of Programs for Handicappers
West 402, Library Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, MI 48824

PAM Assistance Centre
110 Marshall Street
P.O. Box 21037
Lansing, MI 48909

Spina Bifida Association, Capitol Area Chapter
c/o Ruth Brazee. President

6084 Harkson

East Lansing, MI 48823

162

Stroke Center
200 Mill Street
Lansing, MI 48933

United Cerebral Palsy of Michigan, Tri-County Chapter
1026 East Michigan Avenue
Lansing, MI 48912

APPENDIX D. SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

$N.
om.~

 

cowpmw>mo ncmucmpm

164

Pooo. om.Fop

cage mmmm a .m

 

mucmcmmag< toe mPQm»

mm.~ omm copumcwasou

mo.m sap medpeeeda
as._ mm, madeeeeeeeez
cam: pcaou maocw

mcowpmw>mo cgmucmum use memo: azoca

 

mmm 4<HOH
mN.P «mm totem
ee.m~_ F meaeea

882% :82 Jim flaw

Acmsssm mocmpsm> mo mwmzpm=< .Fo mpnmh

Fm.
oe.p

 

copumw>mo usmvcmum

165

Face. mm.mm

 

cash mmmm a .4

sespeeeeee toe apes»

 

~¢.~ omm copumcmneou
op.m «NF mcmpwmumm
Nw.F mmp mcmnqmopccm:
eedz .mmmmw .mmmum

meowumw>ma ccmucmum new memo: azosw

 

mmm

mm._ «mm
ow.mpp F

3.. 28m cam: Jam

xsmsszm mucmwcm> mo mwmz—mc<

4<HOH

soccu
manage

moczom

. Na use...

166

mm.
Pm.p

 

:owumw>mo usmvcmum

pooo.

 

cosh mmmslm

mm.m emu coppmcwnsou
No.m amp mLmFPmumm
nu.p Nmp mcmaamomucmz
51% mammal mama

mcompmw>wo vcwucwpm vcm mcmwz macaw

me.om

.4

 

mmm

NP.P «mm
ep.pop P

mucumcm cam: .mwmw

accesou Low epoch xcmsszm mucmmcm> so mwmxpmc<

m<b¢h

cogsu
azocw

moszom

do speak

167

 

mm.~ 8mm eeeaeeeeedu

am. mm.m em_ med_eeeda
me._ _m._ mm. widenedeeeez
mmmum

copumw>mo ucmvcmum com: pczou

meowpm_>mo usmucmum new memo: azocw

 

 

mmm
¢¢.P emu

pooo. em.~op mm.wep P
ems» mmwm a. um1. mmcamcm new: .4mqm

mmmm mcwmmmco toe spams accessm mocmmsm> so memapmc<

4<h0h

totem
masoco

moczom

:3 m S a...

mm.~ mmm cowamcpneou

 

 

me. Ne.~ em, med._eeem
m~.P Pa._ NMP meeaaeeeeeez
:oPpMe>mo ucmucmam cam: uczoo mzoco

meowumw>mo ccmucmam new memo: Quota

168

 

 

mmm 4<hOk

eo.~ cmm socsm

Pooo. mm.om ep.mm p masoco
cash mmmm m Jul. mwcmacm com: .dm4m ummummw

msmcmummm so» opens secesam mocm_cm> eo mwmxpcc< .mo space

169

pv.m 0mm cowumcwnsoo
mm. mo.m cup empwoumm

 

m~.p mm.p «mp Lmanmuwoco:
copoow>mo ocoocoom com: ocoou moosw

mcowuow>oo osoocoum oco memo: osocu

 

 

mmm m<p¢k

no.p vmm sossm

_ooo. mo.Pm om.em _ meseeo
cog» mom; a .1AM1 mocosam cow: .4mqm .wmummw

sowpwooz so» mpooh ago553m mocowco> so memzpocq .oo spam»

170

 

:3

we. .85

a; s:
8:225 2853 1982

omw
ems
NmP

ucsoo

mcospos>oo osoocmum oco.mcomz ozosw

 

 

mm.
sooo. No.sm oo.mm
cogs mmmm a JMfl. mosozcm coo:

mmm
vmm
s

.s.e

cosponsosou
momssopom
memoooosoooz

moosw

4<hos

sossm
. mososw

mosoom

somsom sos mpoos moossom mucosso> so msmxsoc< .so msoms

171

cm.m oem cosuocsasou

 

 

em. sm.m _~_ mee_seoee
mp._ oa.m m__ assesseseeex
cosuos>mo osoocopm com: uczou moose

mcosoos>oa osoocoom oco meow: oooco

 

 

mmm pouch

eo.P wmm Lossm

mm. as. No.. _ meadow
cogs mmmm m .m mmsozcm com: .4m4m .wmmmmw

meseoo_o d_ees_=m
omocosaa op xpssso< sos msoos xsosszm mucosso> so msmxsoc< .mo msoos

172

 

om.m mmm eossee_QEeo

so. mm.m _Ns mee_sesea

em.P es.~ ms, meeaaeeseee:
eessessde eeeeeeom mama mmmmwn mmmmum

moosuos>mo ocoocoum oco meow: goose

 

 

wmm
m~.~ smm
mo. ow.¢o— Fn.mpp —
:9: $3 o 1.m.1 833% com: fl

cosoousoomcoss cos osoms Asossom mucosso> so msmzsoc<

4<HOP

totem
masoco

mocoom

.mo msoos

173

om.m mmm cosumcsnsou

 

 

so. eo.m ass msmssopmm
mm.s os.m ops memoooosoco:
oosuos>oo osoocoum . com: pcoou mmoosm

mcosuos>mo osmocosm oco meow: ooosw

 

 

«mm 4<h0h

_N.F mmm Lossm

mo. oa.m Ns.e _ masoeo

cogs mom; a .4m1 mmcoocm com: .4mqm .mmmmmw

ocoum op mmooo< sos spams secessm mucosso> so msmxsoc< A:a_msoos

174

 

 

m—.m

so. up.m

NN.— mo.m
cosuos>oo osoocoum com: w

New
mmm

cosponsoEou

msmssoumm

ops memoooosocoz

coou

mcosoos>oo ocoocoom ooo meow: ozoca

NN.P
om. me. mm.

 

 

cogs mom; a .s masoncm com:

osoum smoocss
mcs>oz cs Apsoosssso cos osaos agoesom mucosgo> so

msmxso=<

mmzosw

4<HOH

totem
moaosw

moszom

.—Po mpnoh

175

 

85

SA

mm; a:
8:38 28%: E

mmm
mus
mpp

ocoou

moosums>oo osoocoum oco.mcow: goose

 

 

mm.s
woo. om.w wo.os
cogs «mm; o .m mmcoomw coo:

mmm
0mm
p

.s.c

:osoocsosou
msossouoa
mcooooosoco:
mmmum

4<hos

totem
mooosw

mocoom

xpsoosssso mcsooosm sos msoos agossom mucosco> so msmzso=< .Nso opens

176

 

 

 

¢N.m mmm cosponsosou

so.s se.m mus msmssoumm

ms.s oo.m NP, medeeeoseeez

cospos>oo osoocoom cam: ooooo maocw
moosuos>mo osmocoum coo memo: ooocw

«mm m<sos

mw.s mmm Lossm

mo. ms.m em.m — moaosw

cogs mmom .o .qMI mosoaam com: .s.o mosaom

zosssosmmooo< Eoom mosooss cos «Poms asosE=m mucosso> so msmzsoc<

.mpo mpnoh

177

o~.m smm cosumcsnEou

 

mo. m~.m mss mcmssoumm
es. mm.~ ass mcooooosoco:
cosuos>oo ocoocoom com: Hooou maocw

moosuos>oo ocoocoom oco meow: oooco

 

 

emu m<h¢h

mc.s mmm coccm

mo. mm.v sm.w P masocw

emf. .33 o 4M1 mmcozdm :82 fl 1mg

aesesepo
co xcs oo susssoocs cos opens scossam mucosco> so msmxsoc< .eso msnos

178

 

mo. om.m
em._ mm.~
cospos>wo ocoocopm coo:

smm
mmp
esp

posou

mcosuos>oo ocoocmam oco memo: oaoco

 

 

os.s
mm. sm.s ou.~
cogs mmoo o .s mocoocm coo:

ssmum pzsapmzca

0mm
mmm

.s.o

cosuocsoeoo
mcmssoumm
mcooooosoco:

mooco

A<HOP

coccm
mooocw

mocoom

co msoommomszocxcz cos osoos scossom mucoscm> so msmxsoc< .mso msnos

179

.mocoum oposmmoooo mmm_ :s mcossoamc
.mmcoum osnsmmmooo mcos cs mcm—sopmc u N oaocw .mcmoooosoco;

m oaocu
— ozocwo

mmcoum oposmmmooo mmms one mcoe cs mcmssoumc cmozumn mocmcmsssao

mcmssouoc pso oco mcooooosoco; somzuoo mocmcmsssoo

 

 

mm.~ omm cospocsosou

mm. ms.m so m eneco

ms. No.m on N ooocw

mm.s . so.s «ms _ ooocu
oosuos>oa ocoocoom coo: mummm dummum

moosuos>mo ocoocopm too meow: ozocc

 

 

 

mm. mm. - ms. . om smococou

soc. so.os- mw.N- op smococoo

cons mmom o moso>1s meow: cs conscomeou
wooocmssso

monocoooo< cos spams xcossam mcomscoosou coccosa .oso «Poms

180

.mocoum oposmmoooo mam. cs mcossoumc
xmocoum oposmmoooo mcoe cs mcossoumc u N ooocc .mcmoooosoco;

m osocm
_ oaocwo

mwsoww m—nwmmmuuw mmmp flaw wLoE cw mmewmme P503900 mucwswswpoa

mcmssopmc spa oco mcooooosoco; cowzuoo mocmcmsssoo

 

ce.N emm eesoeeseeeo
es. sm.m as m aeeco
mm. so.m as N asoco
oe._ _ Nw._ Nms s eeeco
eocoessdo sceoeeem mama. .mmmmm ommmum

mcosuos>mc ocoocoum oco meow: oaocw

 

 

 

om. Ns.s- . mm. - em omeceeoo

soc. mN.m- mo.N- op umocucou

cogs mmom o mzso>1s meow: cs comscoosou
mocmcmssso

3:258 cos o2...» acocsam moomscoosou 8585 NE oEE.

181

.mmcoum msosmmoooo mmms cs mcmssouoc
amocoum oposmmmooo ocos cs mcmssopoc u N ozocu .mcmoooosoco;

m osocc
_ osocwo

museum m—nwmmwuuw mmwp tcm mLOE cw msmpwmumg :wm3awn mucmsw$bwon

mco—souoc ppm oco mcmoooosoco; :wmzumo mocmcosssoo

 

sm.N omN :ossocsosou

2. _ Nos 8 . m so;

3. 86 S N 35.5

sm._ . ss.s Nms s ooocw
cosoos>oo ocoocoom _mmmm mmmmm wmmmum

moospos>mc ocoocoom oco memo: ozocw

 

 

 

so. we. so. oN umocucou

Poo. NN.m- Nm.N- ms umocucou

cogs mmou o o=Po>1s meow: cs :omsconsou
mococwssso

ucossou cos msnos scossom moomscooeou cocoosa .mso msoos

182

.mocoum msosmmoooo mmos cs mco—sopoc
.mocopm oposmmmooo mcoe cs mcmssoumc u N ooocm .mcmoomosooo:

m ozocc
s ooocwo

meoum mpnwmwmuum mmmp ten 92:: :_. mgwpmwuw... :wgumn mucmgwk$wan

mcmssoumc sso oco mcmoaoosocoz cmmspmo mocmcmsssoo

 

 

mm.N omN :osuocsoeou

sw. om.m co m ozocw

No. NN.m om N azocw

m¢._ . sm._ Nms s oaocw
cosuos>oo ocoocoum com: mmmmw wmmmum

moosuos>oo ocoocopm oco memo: osocu

 

 

 

om. Nm. 1 _s. 1 oN “mocuooo

Foo. Ps.os- eo.m- as umococou

cogs mmom a moso>1s menu: as :omscooeou
mooocosssa

mmom mcsmmoco cos msoos scossom mcomscoQEou omega—o .mso msoos

183

.mmcoum oposmmoooo mmop cs mcossouoc
.mocopm oposmmmooo mcos cs mcmssouoc u N ooocw .mcmoooosoco:

m ooocc
p oaocwo

mocoom oposmmmooo mmms oco mcoe cs mcmssouoc awesome mococmsssoo

mcm—soooc _so oco mcmoooosocmg omozpmo oozocosssoo

 

 

mN.N omN :osuocsosou

co. mm.N so m osocw

om. am.N co N ooocw

NN.P Pa._ Nms s oaocc
cosoos>oo ocoocowm com: mmmmm dmmmum

moospos>oc ocoocoum oco meow: ozocw

 

 

 

Fm. Nm. 1 co. 1 oN smocucou

soc. mm.m- Ne.s- op smocucou

cogs mmmm a ooso>1s meow: cs couscoasou
oococossso

mcocoamos cos osoos xco553m mcomscoosoo ooccosa dNo osoos

184

.mocoum oposmmmooo moms cs mcmssoumc
qmocoom oposmmoooo ocoe cs mcossoumc u N ooocm .mcmoooosooo;

m ozoco
_ ozocwo

mmLoum m—nwmmmuum mwmp tcm 9.23: cm mLm—wmumL :mwBuwn mucmkmkspon

mcmssoumc _po woo mcmoooosocm; cmmzuoo mocmcmsssoo

 

emN eesseeseeoo
mo. so.m so m aseco
_w. mo.m as N asoco
mN.P . No._ ch _ aeeco
eosoessdo oceoeeom .mmmm mummm dmmmum

moosums>mo ocoocoum oco meow: oooca

 

 

 

Nm. Pp. No. oN smocpoou

soc. mm.m- Ne.N- op umocuzou

cogs mom; a ozso>1s meow: cs :omscooeou
monocossso

xosssooz cos msoos acossom mcomscooeoo omccoso ANo w—oos

185

.mmcoum oposmmoooo moms cs mcmssouoc
«mocoom oposmmoooo mcos cs mcossoumc u N ozocw .mcooooosoco;

m ozocw
_ ooocwo

mocoum m—asmmmooo mmms ooo ocos :s mcossouoc cmmzpmo oocmcmsssoo

mcmssoumc ppm coo mcooooosoco; :mozpoo mocmcmsssoo

 

 

omN :osuocsosou

om. wo.m co m ozocc

om. om.N on N oaocw

a; . s: E _ e395
cosuos>oa ocoocopm com: mmmmm ammmum

moosuos>me ocoooopm oco meow: ozocc

 

 

 

No. Ne. 1 so. - oN smocucou

soc. em.o1 sm.N- as smococou

cogs mmom o moso>1s meow: cs cowscmmEoo
mocmcossso

zoosom cos msoos scoesam mcomscooeou oocoose .NNo o—oos

186

m ooocw
s ozocoo

.mocoom oposmmoooo mmms cs mcossoomc
.mocoom oposmmoooo ocoe cs mcossoomc n N ozocw .mcooooosoco;

mocoum oposmmmooo mmop ooo wcoe es mcmssouoc cmmzumo moomcmsssoo
mcossoumc pso oco mcmoooosoco; cmmzaoo mococmsssoo

 

oo.~ mmw eosoeeseEeo

so. mm.m . No m aseco

Ne. mm.m mm N aseco

em.s I es.N os_ _ asece
eessessdo oceeeeom .mmwm .mmmmm mwmmum

mcospos>mo ocoocmum coo meow: ooocw

 

 

 

mm. ow. No. oN ummcacou

Poo. NN.o_- NN.N- op smocucou

cogs mam; o oopo>1s meow: cs :omscoasou
mococmssso

cosuouocoomoocs cos osoos .2223 mcomscoooau 3:53 No flows

187

.mocoum oposmmmooo mmws cs mcmssoumc
.mocoom oposmmoooo mcos cs mcmssouoc u N oaocu .mcmoooosoco;

m ooocu
s ooocco

mmcoum oposmmmooo mmms oco mcos cs cmssmpmc coozuwn mococossso

 

mcossosoc sso oco mcmoaoosoco; :mmzumo mocmcmsssom

om.N mmN cosuocsoeou

so. No.m so m ozocw

3. Nos mm N aeoco

NN.. SN o: s 32o
632:5 2853. . was @133 lemmfim

moospos>oo ocoocoom one moooz ooocw

 

 

 

ow. 0N. mo. oN umocucou

mo. Nm.s1 Nm.- as umocucou

cons mmmm a moso>1s memo: cs comscNQEou
mocmcmssso

ocoum o» mmooo< cos osnos Acossom mcomscoosoo omceosa .cNo opens

188

.oocouo oposoooooo moms cs ocmssoomc n m ooocw
«omcooo oposommooo mcos :s mcossoooc u N ooocu .ocmoomosoco; n_.o:ocoo

mocouo smosomoooo moms ooo mcoe cs ocossoomc cmozpoo monocosssoo
ocossopoc Pso oco ocooooosooo; cmozumo mococosssoo

 

Ns.o NeN eesoeesoEeo

om. Ns.o oo o aseco

oo.s Np.o . mo N aseco

NN.~ oo.m asp _ eeeco
eesoos>eo ocooeooo mama .mmmmm .wmmmum

moosoos>oo ocoocoom oco meow: oooco

 

 

 

am. so.- o oN poocuooo

o. No.1 ms.- op Noocooou

cogs wood a osso>1s meow: cs :ooscoqsou
monocosssa

mcoum smoocss
mcs>oz cs xppoosssso so «sows scoesom ocooscooeou cocooso .mNo osoos

189

.oocouo oposmomooo moms cs ocopsouoc. m oaocw
.oocouo oposomoooo mcoe cs mcossoumc u N osocu .mcmoooosoco; 1 s ooocw

o
oocooo oposoooooo moms cs ocossouoc ooo ocooooosococ coozumo mocmcmsssoo

mocouo oposmmmooo mcos cs ocm—soooc coo ocmoooosooo; cmmzumo mococosssoo
mocooo oposomoooo moms oco mcoe :s ocossouoc ooozumo mococmsssoo

 

0N.o oNN eososesoeeo
No. oN.o so N aseco
so. mo.o so N asoco
oo._ oa.N os_ s aseco
eosossseo scesesoo mama momma mmmmmm

moosoos>mo ccoocoumsoco meow: oooco

 

 

 

NNo. NN..- _o.- as soscoeeo

moc. om.Nu sm.- n_N ummcacou

ooN. Ns.s NN. os-omscoeeo

cogs mom; a .mmflmmum ocooz cs cooscooeou
mococmssso

xosoossssc mesooosm cos osoos acossom moooscoosou omocoso .oNa osoos

190

.omcouo oposoooooo moms cs ocossouoc

m ozocw
soocoom oposmmwooo mcos cs mcmssouwc u N osocw .mcwoooosoco;

s ooocwo
mucouo oposoooooo moms oco mcos cs ocmssouoc comzooo oococosssoo
ocossoumc Pso oco ocooooosooo; coozumo mooocmsssoo

 

 

sN.m mmN cosuocsnEou

mo._ N¢.m co m oaocw

3. on». so N 32o

mo.~ mo.m N.—p F ozoco

oosoos>oo ocoocopm com: .mmmmm .wmmmum

ooospos>oo ocooooum coo meow: ooocw

 

 

 

om. m_.- No.1 oN poocucou

mo. sm.s- No.1 o— Hoocucou

cogs moo; o moso>1s meow: cs comscoosoo
mocmcmssso

sasssosooooo< zoom mesouss cos msoos scosszm ocooscoosoo oozes—a .sNo osoos

191

.oocooo oposoooooo moms cs oc
.oocouo oposoooooo ocos es ocossoomc u N oooco .ocooo

mocouo o—osoooooo moms oco mcos cs ocossouoc :

ocossoomc _so too mcooooosoco; :

 

 

mN._ os.m NNN
so. om.m so
om. NN.m so
mo._ Nm.N ass
cosoos>oo ocooooum coo: mmmmw

ocosoos>wa scoocoam too meow: ooocw

 

 

mm. cc. 1 sc.-
mc. NN.N- ss.-
cogs moo; o moso>1s meow: cs
mococmssso
sesooeso

co xcs op ass—soq cos osoos Accessm ocooscooeou

m osoco
p ooocoo

mssoaoc
oosoco;

omzsmo oucmcmsssao

mmzumo mococmsssoo

cospocsosoo
m ozocc
N oooco
_ ooocw

omoocw

oN soococoo

as poocucou

 

coosconamu

seeeese .oNo ssoss

192

.oocouo oposoooooo moms cs ocmssouoc
.oocooo oposoooooo mcoe cs ocossoomc u N ooocc .ocooooosoco;

mmcooo o—osmomooo moms oco ocoe as mcossoumc coozumo

ocmssouoc _so too mcmoooosoco; cmmzumo

 

 

c_.m smN
mo.s NN.m so
os.s s_.m mm
sm.s mm.N sss
cospos>wo ocoocoum coo: .mmmmm

mcosoos>oo ocooooum too meow: oooco

 

 

as. N. 1 oo.-
NN. NN.—1 Ns.-
cogs mom; a oopo>us meow: cs
oococossso

sssoo Passpooeo
co m—ooooomszocxoz cos msoos aco553m mcooscoosoo omccoso

m ozocw
s osocoo

mocmcosssao

mococosssoo

cosoocsoEou
m ozoco
N oooco
_ ozocw

omooco

oN poocucou

op uoocuzou

 

comscoqsou

.mNo ~32.

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahrbeck, Ellen Hanselmann, and Friend, Shirley E. "Clothing -
An Asset of Liability? Designing for Special Needs."
Rehabilitation Literature. Vol. 37, No. 10 (October, 1976).

Albrecht, Gary L. ReducingAPublic Barriers of the Severely Handi-
capped. Research Report R-30. Chicago: 1Northwestern University
and Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 1976.

Atchley, Robert C. The Social Forces in Later Life. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publi§hing Co., T976.

Bowar, Mirian T. Clothin for the Handica ed: Fashion Ada tations
for Adults and Children. Refiafiilitation guElication 1737, Sister Kenny
Institute, MThneapolis, Minnesota, 1978.

Bowe, Frank. Handicapping America. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.

Bruck, Lilly, Access: The Guide to a Better Life for Disabled
Americans. New York: RandmeHouse, 1978.

Bruck, Lilly, ed. Consumer Rights for Disabled Citizens. New York:
Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York, 1976. PP.
51-54. 83-84.

Bureau of Rehabilitation. Annual Report, 1978. Lansing,.Michigan:
Michigan Department of Reha tation, 9.
Burnett.Maria1yce. Some Socio-Economic Factors Associated with

C]gth]ng Purgnasjng Habits of a Selected Group of nggn Sixty-

fiye Years of Age and Over .‘ Master's Thesis, Oregon State
University, 1964.

 

 

Cookman and Zimmerman. Functionalyfgshions for the Physically Handi-
capped. New York: Institute of Rehabilitation Medicine. New
York University Medical Center. 1961.

"Discounter Puts on a New Face." Chain Store Age Executive, Vol. 54,
September, 1978, pp. 43-64.

Dodge, Robert. E.. "Purchasing Habits and Market Potentials of the
Older Consumer." Law and_Contemporary Problems ’v01_ 27, No. 1
(Winter, 1962), pp. 142-156.

193

194

Dodge, Robert E. "Selling the Older Customer." Journal of Retailing.
Vol. 34-35, Summer, 1978, pp. 73-81.

Ewald, Caroline Marie. Clothipg Needs of Men with a Physical Disabili-
ty Wearing Braces or Artificial Limbs. Master's Thesis, the Univer-
sity of Arizona, 1975.

Gentile, Eric A. and Taylor, Judy K. "Images, Words, and Identity."

East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Handicapper
Programs, 1976.

Goldenson, Robert M. Disability and Rehabilitation Handbook. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1978, pp. 110-119.

Hale, Glorya. The Source Book for the Disabled. New York: Padding-
ton Press Ltd., 1979.

Hallenbeck, Phyllis M. "Special Clothing for the Handicapped, Review
of Research and Resources.“ Rehabilitation Literiture. Vol. 27,
No. 2 (February, 1966), pp. 34-40.

Hoffman, Adeline M. Clothing for the Handicapped, the Aged, and Other
People with Special Neeg§.ISpFingfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas, Publishers, 1979.

Hollerith, Richard Jr. "Eliminating the Handicap." Industrial Design.
May/June, 1976. PP. 54-55.

 

Hotte, Eleanor Boettke. Self-Help Clothing_for Children Who Have

Physical Disabilities. Chitago: National Easter Seal SEEiety for
Crippled Children and Adults, 1979.

"How Discounter Aims for Easily Shopped Stores." Chain Store Age
Executive. 51: 42 (November, 1975).

 

Jones, Michael A. Accgssibility Standards Illustrated. State of
Illinois: Capital Development Board, June, 1978.

Jones, Michael A. and Catlin, John H. "Design for Access." Progressive
Architecture. April, 1978.

 

Kernaleguen, Anne. Clothing Designs for the Handicapped. Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada: The University of Alberta Press, 1978.

King, Charles W. "Diffusion Research in Marketing: The Role of
Everett M. Rogers," in the Alan R. Anderson et al. edition of Public
Policy and Marketing Thought: Proceedings from the Ninth Paul D.
Converse Sympgsium. Chicago: American Marketing Association, 1976.

Leonard, Edmund. "The Handicapped Building." Rehabilitation Literiture.
Vol. 39, No. 9 (September, 1978), pp. 265-269.

195

Macarthy P. Clothes Sense for Handicapped Adults of All Ages.
London: Disabled Living Foundation, 1973.

Michigan Statutes
1973, Michigan P.A. 8
1977, Michigan P.A. 19
1978, Michigan P.A. 88
1978, Michigan P.A. 132

Newton, Audrey. "Clothing: A Positive Part of the Rehabilitation
Process." Journal of Rehabilitation. September/October, 1976,
pp. 18-22.

Newton, Audrey. "Specially Designed Clothing Can Be a Boon to the
Aging and Handicapped." Handbook for the Home, Yearbook of Agri-
culture. U.S.D.A., 1973. pp. 322L325.

Phelon‘s Discount Stores. 1978-1979 Directory of Self-Service Depart-
ment Stores. New York: Phelon, Sheldon, and MEFsar,’Inc., Novem-
ber, 1977, pp. 75-79.

Phipps, Cynthia Allen. "Clothing Designs for Handicapped Elderly
Women." Journal of Home Economics. September, 1977, pp. 21-23.

Rankin, Velda Frances. Clothing Problems and Interests Expressed py
a Selected Group of Women Over Sixty Years of Age. Masterrs
Thesis, Kansas State University, 1967.

Reich, Naomi. "Handicapped People Face Architectural Design Barriers
When Shopping." Submitted for publication to Interiors, 1979.

"Remodeling Gives New Look to Discounters." Chain Store Age Executive.
Vol. 54, August, 1978, pp. 90-94.

 

Rice, Virginia Katterfield. Attractive Garment Desigps for Physically
Handicapped Women Who Wear Leg_Braces and Who Use Crutches. Master‘s
Thesis, Florida State University, 1971.

Richards, Joanne Murray. A Study of the Clothing Needs and Preferences
of a Selected Group of Women Sixty-Five Years of Age and Over and
Their Problems in Shoppin for Snitable Clothing. Master’s TheSis,
University of Maryland, 19 .

Rogers. Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press
of Glencoe, 1962.

Rothman, Marian Burk. "The Customer with Special Needs." Stores.
October, 1979, pp. 54-57.

196

Scott, Clarice L. "Clothing Needs of Physically Handicapped Homemakers."
Jourppg of Home Economics. Vol. 51, No. 8 (October, 1959), pp.
709-, .

Shipley, Suzanne. A Comparative Study of Older Women's Preferences in
Clothingyand the.SelectTOn'Prov13ed in the Retail Birket. Master's
TheSTS, Michigan State University, 1961.

"Shopping Via Mail Order." On Your Own. Vol. IX.. No. 12 (December,
1979). pp. 1-3.

Sindelair, Margaret Beckenhauer. Clothing Satisfactions andPreferences
of Phygically Disabled Homemakers. Master's ThesiE} University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, 1969.

Spicer, Edward H. Human Problems in'TechnolOgical Change. New York:
Russel Sage Foundation, 1952}

Tate, Mildred T. and Glisson, Oris. Family Clothipg, New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1961.

Tharp, Bernece Jewel. A Study of Design and Fitting Problems in
Clothing for Assymetric Figures. Master‘s Thesis, Cornell
University, 1956.

United States Statutes
90 S.T.A.T. 480 (1968)
93 S.T.A.T. 87 (1973)

Van Cott, Harold P. and.Kincade, Robert G. Human Engineering Guide
gggEquipment Des1g_, Washington, D.C.: American Institute for
Research, Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Steering Committee, 1972,
pp. 382-399.

Varner, Roberta Florence. Specified Shopping Practices for Dresses
Worn While Working at Home as Stated by a Selected Grogp of W6men
Sixty-Five and Over n Kansas City, Missouri. Master‘s Thesis,
Kansas Staté—Univers ty, 1967.

 

Wachter, Peter, Lorenc, John, and Lai, Edward. Urban WheelChair Use:
A Human Factors Analysis. Chicago: Rehabilitatibn Institute air—-
fificago, T976.

Walker, Ellen Roberta Lee. Clethipg Preferences and Purchasing Concepts
of Older Women and Retail CTbthinngders. Master’s The§is,*Texas
Women‘s University, Denton, Texa5171972.

Yep, Benjamin H. and Riggs, Norman P. "Finding the Hidden Audience."
Journal of Extension. July/august, 1978, pp.5-lO.

Yep, Jacquelyn, Clothes to Fit Your Needs. Publication PM 570,
Cooperative Extension SerViCe, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa,
1974.

197

Yep, Jacquelyn Orlando. Preparation of Extension Home Economists as
Clothing Consultants to PhysicdllygDisabled Individuals. Doctoral
Dissertation, Iowa State University, 1976.

Zaltman, Gerald, Kotler, Philip, and Kaufman, Ira. Creating Social
Change. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1972.