Abstract
Disability-inclusive development is important because there are a billion people with disabilities, and they often fall behind in income, education, health, and wellbeing. More and better evidence is needed on the effectiveness of how development interventions include and target people with disabilities. This review outlines some of the methodological challenges facing impact evaluations of disability-inclusive development interventions. Identifying people with disabilities is complex. Most approaches focus on impairment or functional limitations. They may or may not recognise environmental or personal factors, which influence the experience of disability. The Washington Group Short Set is widely endorsed for disability assessment; the addition of anxiety and depression items may enhance this tool further. The appropriate outcomes for the impact evaluation should be selected based on the aims and target audience of the intervention, the availability of appropriate tools, and after consultation with people with disabilities. New and better tools are needed to measure the range of impacts that may occur with greater accuracy, including impacts that are direct/indirect, proximal/distal, intended/unintended, and positive/negative. Disaggregation of data by impairment type is recommended to understand the effectiveness of interventions for different groups where the sample size is sufficient to allow meaningful comparisons. The inclusion of people with disabilities throughout the research process will improve the quality and acceptability of the study conducted.
Highlights
Why Do We Need More Evidence on Disability-Inclusive Development?Development scholars, practitioners and policy-makers are increasingly taking notice of the needs of minority groups, recognising that they will have particular priorities and vulnerabilities
Including disability in the development agenda and programmes is important to maximise the quality of life of people with disabilities and their families, enable the realisation of rights, and contribute towards the achievement of development goals
Three rapid evidence assessments (REAs) have subsequently been undertaken to consider the evidence related to education, social inclusion and empowerment studies included in the evidence and gap map (EGM). [7,8] These REAs showed that the quality of the studies was generally low and that there were large gaps both in terms of the geographic spread of evidence and for specific topics
Summary
Development scholars, practitioners and policy-makers are increasingly taking notice of the needs of minority groups, recognising that they will have particular priorities and vulnerabilities. Impact evaluations should collect both qualitative and quantitative data to provide a full picture of effectiveness, including the acceptability of the intervention, and to help understand the importance of contextual factors Other research designs, such as anthropological studies, are important for revealing the experiences and needs of people with disabilities. [7,8] These REAs showed that the quality of the studies was generally low and that there were large gaps both in terms of the geographic spread of evidence and for specific topics (e.g., empowerment, secondary education) Another important concern was that the interventions identified generally attempted to improve skills in the person with disabilities—to “fix” the person in some way—rather than addressing institutional or environmental barriers, which are often the key focus of disability-inclusive development. Our focus is on impact evaluation, but some of our findings and recommendations will be relevant for other study designs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
