INDICATORS TO EVALUATE THE LABOUR INSERTION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN CONVENTIONAL COMPANIES IN SPAIN: QUANTITIATIVE DATA SET OF DELPHI STUDY (PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3)

The level of labor integration of people with disability (PwD) is notably lower than that of people without disabilities. In order to evaluate the success of the labor market integration of people with disabilities, it is necessary to establish a series of indicators that go beyond hiring rates. Hence, the objective of this study is to develop a list of indicators with their specified individual weight that will serve to evaluate the success of the labor market insertion of PwD in conventional companies.

Methodology:

The Delphi method was used.

PHASE 1

In Phase 1, an open-ended questionnaire was distributed to 48 human resources and disability experts. 

PHASE 2

Based on the theoretical dimensions obtained, a list of 52 indicators was drawn up and the experts were asked to evaluate the importance of each item using a scale of 0 to 10 points. In addition, in this second questionnaire, they were encouraged to propose improvements in the final wording of the items, as well as in the relevance and denomination of the dimensions into which they had been grouped. No suggestions were received to modify the wording or to incorporate additional items.

PHASE 3

Once the scores of all the participants had been collected, a third questionnaire was sent out with the aim of achieving a statistical consensus within the group of experts. In this questionnaire, each panel member was informed of their degree of agreement or disagreement in relation to the group as a whole, without revealing the identity of the other participants. In other words, each participant was provided with information on the average rating of the group and their own initial rating (from Phase 2) of each of the 52 indicators, offering them the option to modify their response if they considered it appropriate. If they chose to change their assessment, they were asked to justify their reasons.

To assess the possible convergence of opinion, the change in the responses received in the third phase with respect to the second phase was analyzed. We examined whether there had been variations in the scores given by the experts in the second phase once the group's mean ratings had been received. For this purpose, the “proportion of experts” statistic was used to verify that the average value of the responses in this third phase was within a range from [-0.5 to +0.5], compared to the average value of the scores in the second phase. In the case of non-convergence of opinion, this methodology allows for as many rounds as necessary until convergence is achieved.

THIS DATA SET COLLECT THE ANSWERS OF THE EXPERTS OF PHASE 2 AND PHASE 3.