"General inclusive activity management" (Q27-29) is a phrase introduced in this survey to set apart specific judgment skills. The first item in this area, "Facilitators understand the unique risks involved in each activity for participants with disabilities (Q27)," was markedly lower than the other two items. These items were: "Facilitators can determine when situations require modifications or other means for safely spotting or belaying participants with disabilities consistent with program policy and procedures (Q28)," and "Appropriate staff-to-participant ratios are maintained, as indicated by the needs of participants with disabilities, in order to safely and effectively include some participants (Q29)." Again, there appear to be conflicting results. Perhaps Q27 was seen as knowledge that a facilitator might have about specific disabling conditions, whereas the other two items were more judgment- or intuition-based, with the facilitator erring on the side of caution. From my own experience, I think facilitators lean toward being safer than riskier with any population, particularly when there is doubt about the capabilities and needs of the group.

Note: Finding inconsistencies between responses is not unusual in survey research. It is a descriptive snapshot of information with little explanatory power. I offer some possible explanations given my familiarity with the content, while readers are encouraged to draw their own conclusions. Incongruence offers an opportunity for curious minds to analyze the possibilities.