Cited by 85Disability Rights and RepresentationInclusion and Disability in Education and SportDigital Accessibility for Disabilities

Should I Say “Disabled People” or “People with Disabilities”? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language

Open access
Sharif, Ather, McCall, Aedan Liam, Bolante, Kianna Roces·2022·Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility

Abstract

The usage of identity- (e.g., “disabled people”) versus person-first language (e.g., “people with disabilities”) to refer to disabled people has been an active and ongoing discussion. However, it remains unclear which semantic language should be used, especially for different disability categories within the overall demographics of disabled people. To gather and examine the language preferences of disabled people, we surveyed 519 disabled people from 23 countries. Our results show that 49% of disabled people preferred identity-first language whereas 33% preferred person-first language and 18% had no preference. Additionally, we explore the intra-sectionality and intersectionality of disability categories, gender identifications, age groups, and countries on language preferences, finding that language preferences vary within and across each of these factors. Our qualitative assessment of the survey responses shows that disabled people may have multiple or no preferences. To make our survey data publicly available, we created an interactive and accessible live web platform, enabling users to perform intersectional exploration of language preferences. In a secondary investigation, using part-of-speech (POS) tagging, we analyzed the abstracts of 11,536 publications at ACM ASSETS (N=1,564) and ACM CHI (N=9,972), assessing their adoption of identity- and person-first language. We present the results from our analysis and offer recommendations for authors and researchers in choosing…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3517428.3544813

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sharif, A., McCall, A. L., & Bolante, K. R.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 24th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-10-22
Pages
1-18
OpenAlex
W4307137010
Cited by
85
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1
FWCI
14.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Inclusion and Disability in Education and Sport
  • Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
Keywords
disability terminology, identity-first language, person-first language, people with disabilities, language preference, intersectionality, disability categories, gender identity, age groups, part-of-speech tagging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review