**10. Results**

research, the more specific and personal questions were to respondents, the more likely

A standardized formal interview using a structured questionnaire was used in this research, as interviews tend to have a high response rate and offer the opportunity to correct misunderstanding with regard to questions. The questionnaire enabled the interviewer to carry out ratings while controlling for incompleteness. Interviews are more successful with respondents

It is important that the sample is representative of the population, and if a large percentage do not respond, the sample may become biased. The accepted cut-off response rate for surveys is 65% [67, 68]. In this research, an advance participation invite notification was sent to respondents. The letter included an explanation about the research; how respondents were chosen; confidentiality and anonymity; and the time that it would take to complete the questionnaire. Other strategies implied to deal with response rate were careful pilot work in order to ensure that the design of the questionnaire was delivering similar answers from respondents. Additionally, a cover letter was sent to all respondents and an incentive such as a copy of the results of the survey, if so requested, was assured by the administrators of the questionnaire. In the case of non-response, where people refused, or had moved away or were on holidays, a substitute with matching characteristics was used. The administrators also endeavoured to find out whether the reasons for non-response were somehow connected with the topic of the research. Both research administrators were afforded interview skills training as interview skills were considered an important part of the interview response rate. This training enabled the administrators together with the researcher to check responses and related problems by monitoring the completed questionnaires by comparing the results obtained by various inter-

The completed questionnaires were collated and coded using a statistical package for the social sciences [69]. In phase 1 of the data analysis, frequencies of responses and cross tabulation of individual questionnaire items were calculated for the purpose of specific demographic information and the results were displayed using tables. In phase 2 of the data analysis, observations from the micro-neighbourhood and the random selection were compared. The chisquare inferential statistical method was used to examine the potential association between categorical variables, that is, between the micro-neighbourhood sample and the random sample, in each of the following categories: demographic details; social networks and activities;

who have a reading or language difficulty and thereby can aid response rate [67].

they were to give consistent and comprehensive replies.

**8. Data collection**

**8.1. Recruitment and response rate**

194 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

views for patterned differences.

**9. Data analysis**

#### **10.1. Demographic attributes of both samples**

Across both samples, 470 interviews were attempted and 358 completed. This was made up of 158 respondents in the micro-neighbourhood and 200 respondents in the no-community-home sample. Of the respondents, 148 were males, 210 females and this included other combinations of persons, e.g. wife, mother and widow. Age, marital status, education, work patterns, number of children under 16 years and type of living accommodation were also obtained (**Table 1**).

Chi-square tests were applied to both samples, and each demographic characteristics, to see if significant associations existed. The average interviewee was between 20 and 59, and there was a significant association between the two areas and age (p ≤ 0.05). The majority of those near a community-based residence were aged 20–29 years, followed by 49–59 age band, whereas the age range of those living in the contrast area was 49–59 years. A higher proportion of those living in the no-community-home sample were aged 60 years or over. There was no significant difference between the proportion of females versus males in both samples, indicating an equal distribution of gender (p > 0.05). The majority of respondents 58% (116) in the no-community-home sample left school at 15 years of age. A significant association (p < 0.001) between the community-home sample and education was found. There was a significant difference (p = 0.001) between samples with regard to marital status, a higher percentage (30%) single in the community-home location as opposed to 3% in the contrast sample. No significant associations between samples were obtained on either, length of time people resided in the neighbourhood (p > 0.05) and respondents' occupation (p > 0.05). There was significant differences between the micro-neighbourhood and the random samples with respect to having children under 16 years. A higher percentage of respondents in the community-home sample had children under 16 (p < 0.01). Type of accommodation differed between samples



**Table 1.** Characteristics of community-home and no-community-home samples.

(p < 0.01), with a higher percentage in the community-home sample owning or having owned their house, whereas in the no-community-home sample, a higher percentage rented and/or lived in council housing.

#### **10.2. Contact with people with learning disabilities**

**Description Community-home (n = 158) No-Community-home (n = 200) Chi square P value**

20–39 65 41.7 55 27.8 8.441 .038

Male 62 39.2 86 43.0 .371 .542

15 47 29.9 116 58.0 28.164 <.001

Married 124 78.5 23 61.5 15.646 .001

1–2 years 8 5.1 11 5.5 3.17 .365

Yes 80 51.3 114 66.3 7.377 .007

9.696 .084

**n % n %**

<20 4 2.6 8 4

196 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

49–59 58 37.2 82 41.4 60+ 29 18.6 53 26.8

Female 96 60.8 114 57.0

Go to higher level 79 50.3 63 31.5 Go to college/university 31 19.7 21 10.5

Single 20 2.7 60 30.0

Widowed 12 7.6 14 7.0 Separated 2 1.3 3 1.5

Neighbourhood < 1 year 10 6.3 6 3.0

3–5 years 9 5.7 17 8.5 Over 5 years 131 82.9 166 83.0

Working full-time 65 41.1 61 30.5

Part time 22 13.9 34 17.0 Full-time student 3 1.9 6 3.0 Unemployed 3 1.9 13 6.5 Housewife 43 27.2 48 24.0 Retired 22 13.9 38 19.0

No 76 48.7 57 33.1

**Age**

**Gender**

**School (Leave school at**)

**Marital status**

**Living in**

**Occupation**

**No. of children <16**

In the questionnaire, all respondents (random and micro-neighbourhood) were asked if they had contact with people with learning disabilities living in the community (**Table 2**).

A significant association between samples and amount of contact emerged (p < 0.001). In the micro-neighbourhood sample, 41% (65) of respondents reported seeing people with learning disabilities in their community, this compared with 13% (25) in the no-community-home sample, but regular contact was low in both samples. Respondents were then asked if these people had a learning disability (**Table 3**).

In **Table 3**, the analysis of the data yielded statistically significant differences between the proportion of the two samples who had contact with people with learning disabilities (p < 0.001). In the micro-neighbourhood sample, 96% (108) maintained they had contact, but only 64% (48) of the other sample had such contact.

The type and quality of contact with people with learning disabilities from neighbours was not strongly evidenced, 52% (82) in the community-home area and 64% (128) in the corresponding sample stated they had no real contact (**Table 4**). The amount of regular contact in both areas is similar, contradicting what had been apparent in **Table 3**, in which respondents maintained that they had contact with people with learning disabilities 96% (108) in the micro-neighbourhood home and 64% (48) in the no-community-home sample.

In the micro-neighbourhood, that is, respondents living next door or in the vicinity of community-home findings from the data (**Table 5**) on contacts revealed the amount of contact they had with people with learning disabilities over a week, a month and year. Ninety-three percent (31) of the respondents stated they had seen people with learning disabilities around the neighbourhood; 77% (109) of respondents who replied to this question maintained that they had seen them in the last week and 56% (79) stated they had talked to them outside of the community-home. Respondents were then asked such contact was made and the results are presented in **Table 5**.


**Table 2.** Percentage of respondents reporting contact with people with disabilities.


**Table 3.** Percentage of respondents reporting they had contact with people with learning disabilities.


**Table 4.** How contact was made with people with learning disabilities.

Of the 62 respondents (**Table 6**) who answered this question, 29% (18) people stated that people with learning disabilities approached them. Other than this, contact was made at other social outlets like, at mass, at the shops and social outings. The findings show no dramatic increase in meaningful contact.


**PW** = Per Week; **PM** = Per Month; **PY**= Per Year

Of the 62 respondents (**Table 6**) who answered this question, 29% (18) people stated that people with learning disabilities approached them. Other than this, contact was made at other social outlets like, at mass, at the shops and social outings. The findings show no dramatic

**Contact… Community-home (n = 158) No-Community-home (n** 

**Table 2.** Percentage of respondents reporting contact with people with disabilities.

**n % n %**

**No** 4 3.5 25 36.0

**(n = 158)**

**Table 4.** How contact was made with people with learning disabilities.

**Contact… Community-home** 

**No real contact with people with learning disabilities**

**Just seen people with learning disabilities in the community**

**Met and talked with people with learning disabilities**

**No contact with people with disabilities**

198 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

**Occasional meetings people** 

**Seen people with disabilities people around** 

**with disabilities**

**Are they people with learning disabilities?**

**Regular contact with people with disabilities**

**the area**

**n % n %**

46 29.1 124 62.0

20 12.7 16 8.0

27 17.1 35 17.5

**Yes** 108 95.6 48 64.0 31.853 <.001

**n % n %**

82 51.9 128 64.0

23 14.6 21 10.5

**Table 3.** Percentage of respondents reporting they had contact with people with learning disabilities.

**= 200)**

**Community-Home (n = 158) No-Community-Home (n = 200) Chi-square P Value**

**No-Community-home**

21 13.3 16 8.0 6.354 .096

 **(n = 200)**

65 41.1 25 12.5 50.815 <.001

**Chi-square P value**

**Chi-square P value**

increase in meaningful contact.

**Table 5.** Micro-neighbourhood sample and contact with people with learning disabilities.


**Table 6.** Micro-neighbourhood and how contact with people with learning disabilities was made.
