Should I Say “Disabled People” or “People with Disabilities”? Language Preferences of Disabled People Between Identity- and Person-First Language
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This positionality functioned as a methodological asset, enabling rapport with participants and sensitivity to subtle accessibility challenges that sighted researchers might overlook.
“This positionality functioned as a methodological asset, enabling rapport with participants and sensitivity to subtle accessibility challenges that sighted researchers might overlook [49, 65].”
From "I Don't Trust Any Professional Research Tool": A Re-Imagination of Knowledge Production Workflows by, with, and for Blind and Low-Vision Researchers (2026) · cites this paper as [65]
Cites
Which terms should be used to describe autism? Perspectives from the UK autism community
Kenny, L., Hattersley, C., Molins, B., Buckley, C., Povey, C., & Pellicano, E. (2016) · Autism · doi:10.1177/1362361315588200 · Cited by 1,941 · see citing works
VoxLens: Making Online Data Visualizations Accessible with an Interactive JavaScript Plug-In
Sharif, A., Wang, O. H., Muongchan, A. T., Reinecke, K., & Wobbrock, J. O. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517431 · Cited by 86 · cited 3× · see citing works
“We used VoxLens [58], an open-source JavaScript plug-in that improves the accessibility of online data visualizations using a multimodal approach.”
MethodInfluentialSelf-citationUnderstanding Screen-Reader Users’ Experiences with Online Data Visualizations
Sharif, A., Chintalapati, S. S., Wobbrock, J. O., & Reinecke, K. (2021) · Proceedings of the 23rd International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3441852.3471202 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Self-citationReview of Quantitative Empirical Evaluations of Technology for People with Visual Impairments
Brulé, E., Tomlinson, B. J., Metatla, O., Jouffrais, C., & Serrano, M. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376749 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khan, O., & Seo, J. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791242 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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