The data contained in this report were generated from the Participation and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS) 2001. Approximately 35,000 adults aged 15 and over with disabilities were sampled in the PALS 2001 with a response rate of 82.5%. Unlike the 1986 and 1991 HALS, which provided data on all provinces and territories, the 2001 PALS was conducted only in the ten provinces; the 2001 PALS does not cover any of the three territories. Unlike the 1986 and 1991 HALS, no time comparison is possible with the 2001 since the filter questions and sampling design have been altered considerably.
Like the 1986 and 1991 HALS, the 2001 PALS is a post-censal survey (i.e., the survey follows a Census and utilizes answers to filter questions contained on the census to derive its sample). The filter question that was contained on the 2001 Census was different from the one used in 1986, 1991, and 1996. In 1986 through 1996, the Census filter question was nearly identical:
1. Is this person limited in the kind or amount of activity that he/she can do because of a long-term physical condition, mental condition or health problem:
(a) At home?
__No, not limited
__Yes, limited
(b) At school or at work?
__No, not limited
__Yes, limited
__Not applicable
(c) In other activities, e.g., transportation to or from work, leisure time activities?
__No, not limited
__Yes, limited
2. Does this person have any long-term disabilities or handicaps?
__No
__Yes
For the 2001 Census the following new filter question was developed:
1. Does this person have any difficulty hearing, seeing, communicating, walking, climbing stairs, bending, learning or doing any similar activities?
__Yes, sometimes
__Yes, often
__No
2. Does a physical condition or mental condition or health problem reduce the amount or the kind of activity this person can do:
(a) At home?
__Yes, sometimes
__Yes, often
__No
(b) At work or at school?
__Yes, sometimes
__Yes, often
__No __Not applicable
(c) In other activities, for example, transportation or leisure?
__Yes, sometimes
__Yes, often
__No
Before the initial HALS, testing indicated that the short Census filter question being used was likely to yield both false positive answers and false negative answers. This means that when individuals were asked specific questions about their capacity to perform a variety of tasks (i.e., the full complement of HALS screening questions), it appeared that some individuals who had indicated a disability on the Census question appeared not to have a disability (false positives) when asked the full complement of HALS screening questions about specific tasks; these false positives could be eliminated easily during the HALS screening process.
More difficult to deal with, however, was the finding that some individuals who had indicated no disability on the Census question indeed had a disability (false negatives) when asked the full complement of HALS screening questions (which asked about one's ability to perform very specific tasks in a variety of areas). In an effort to reduce the rate of false negatives, the 1986 and 1991 HALS included a large "NO" sample. This "NO" sample included individuals who had indicated "no" on the Census filter question regarding disability. In this manner, an effort was made to include the false negatives in the final HALS.
In 2001, the "NO" sample was eliminated from the design of the PALS. As well, the filter question that was used on the 2001 Census was used on the 2001 PALS as well (rather than the 32 specific screening questions used in the 1991 HALS). Therefore, we are able to "weed out" false positives using a second asking of the new question (between the Census and PALS); however, we are not able to add back in 'false negatives'. Thus, we are likely capturing a slightly different and smaller population than before.
For more information regarding the differences between the HALS and the PALS, refer to: "A New Approach to Disability Data: Changes between the 1991 Health and Activity Limitation Survey (PALS)", December 2002, catalogue no. 89-578-XIE, Statistics Canada, Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division.
Data regarding the use and need of assistive aids/devices among persons with disabilities are derived from several series of questions that are attached to other questions regarding the individual's ability to perform particular functions (these questions are not used as screening questions as they were in 1986 and 1991, but rather, are used to determine the type of disability). They are organized by 'disability type'. The series of questions typically begin at a basic level by asking if the respondent uses 'any aids or specialized equipment for persons with a particular difficulty'; then there is an effort made to determine more specifically what is being used. This is followed up with a question asking, at a general level, if the respondent needs something that he/she does not have; then there is an effort made to determine more specifically what is needed. From these questions, we are able to organize this information into the following basic categories:
This allows us to determine the number of individuals who have some type of requirement (whether it is being met or not met). It also allows us to determine the number of individuals who are having their requirements fully met and partially met.
As with any survey, there are a number of individuals who failed to provide a valid response (or responded, "I don't know") for some of these questions. In an earlier release by Statistics Canada regarding requirements for aids and devices, cases with "missing data" were eliminated from the analysis. The missing case rate was very high on these variables. In our analysis here, most of these cases are added back into the analysis. The reasoning behind this is as follows:
Questions regarding the use and need of support with daily activities among persons with disabilities were asked in a manner somewhat similar to those in the section on aids and devices. The questions begin at a basic level by asking if the respondents 'receive any help' with a series of specific household tasks (meal preparation, everyday housework, etc.) because of their disability; then the respondents are asked if they still 'need' help with these tasks. From these questions, we are able to organize this information into the following basic categories:
This allows us to determine the number of individuals who have some type of requirement (whether it is being met or not met). It also allows us to determine the number of individuals who are having their requirements fully met and partially met.
Again, our treatment of missing cases was designed to reduce the number of missing cases eliminated from the analysis. We again assume that if individuals were unsure (or unable to answer 'yes') to either having help or needing help, that they likely didn't have it or need it. This logic is consistent with that followed for aids and devices.
Unfortunately, the questions in the section on school supports were not asked in a manner consistent with those on 'aids/devices' or 'help with daily activities'— resulting in different and less information being available. Respondents are funnelled into the questions from a different starting point.
In the sections on aids/devices and home supports/services (as discussed above), respondents were asked first about what they "already used or had". This forced the respondents to first think about what they did or did not have—rather than what they required. In the school supports section, the opposite was the case—respondents were forced to think first about what they required rather than what they had.
There is a 'feeder or switch' question at the beginning of the section on school supports that asks, in general, if the respondent required 'something' and then there is a series of questions designed to detect more specifically what was required. Only then is the respondent asked if he/she had what he/she needed ('was it made available to you?'). There is no possibility of detecting partially unmet and partially met needs.
We assumed that individuals required something only if they answered "yes" to the initial question: "did you require . . .?" If they failed to answer yes, it was assumed that they do not require anything. However, if they have answered "yes" to this question and gone on to answer "yes" to a requirement for a specific item, they were then asked if they had received it. If they answered "yes, they received it", clearly they had their needs met. If they answered "no, they didn't receive it", clearly they had an unmet need. If they failed to answer either "yes" or "no", we treated them as missing cases. We were unsure just how to interpret this lack of information. There are reasonable arguments to suggest that these might actually be people who had what they needed; as well, there are reasonable arguments to the contrary which suggest that they did not have what they needed.
In all likelihood, the inability to respond either 'yes' or 'no' to this question is likely indicative of individuals who had 'some' of what they needed, but not all. For those who had partially met/unmet needs, there would likely be a certain amount of dissonance involved in answering either 'yes' or 'no'. The absence of a question to detect partially met needs in this section presents the possibility for confusion. We felt that the safest method of dealing with these individuals was to eliminate them as missing cases. Unlike in the section on aids and devices, where missing cases comprised a large proportion of the population, the missing case rate here is tolerable.
Respondents are asked information about two types of supports at school. First they are asked about modified building structures or services—something at the structural level. Next they are asked about assistive devices or services—something at the personal level. The same methodology applies to both types of supports.
The information on workplace supports that is available within the employment section of PALS is very similar to that discussed under school supports. The same methodology is applied to both.
We should point out, however, that employed and unemployed individuals were questioned in separate sections and are analyzed separately. We had initially expected to provide a section on those who were not in the labour force (NILF) who were not officially retired. The "not in the labour force" population in PALS is split into two groups: retired and non-retired. Since it makes little sense to discuss gaps in programs for workplace supports for people who claim to be retired, we had hoped to isolate the non-retired not in the labour force. Unfortunately, an error was made on the original PALS file in which some 'retired' individuals were classified as 'non-retired' for the workplace supports questions and vice-versa. Unfortunately, the data file was corrected by Statistics Canada too late for us to provide this analysis.
The questions in the section on specialized features within the home were asked in a manner similar to those in the general "aids and devices" section and "supports with daily activities" section. Individuals were first asked if they used something; if so, what specifically. Then individuals were asked if they still needed anything; if so, what specifically. We adopted the same methodology here that we did in the section on aids and devices. Missing cases were minimized by assuming that if the respondent could not say that they used something, they probably didn't use anything; and, if they couldn't say that they needed anything, they probably didn't.