Skip To Navigation Skip to Content
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregedivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregafgivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
Individuals & Caregivers
Physical & Occupational Therapy
Public Health Professionals
Teachers
 

NCHPAD - Building Healthy Inclusive Communities

Font Size:

Demographics of Children with Disabilities


Exercise professionals - including physical education teachers, camp counselors, coaches, and personal trainers - who work with children with disabilities should have a basic understanding of the demographic make-up of children with disabilities to better serve their exercise programming needs. For example, the proportion of children who experience mobility limitations due to disability is on the decline. The most common disabilities for children are cognitive disabilities and asthma (Mudrick, 2002). Boys are more likely than girls to be classified as having a disability (Mudrick, 2002). But Bluechardt, Wiener and Shephard (1995) noted that gender bias might be leading to an underestimation of the number of girls with a disability. In a learning disability context, the authors noted that some parents might have more interest in the academic achievements of their sons over their daughters. In addition, due to "social conditioning and/or inherent characteristics, fewer girls react to their learning disability by disruptive behavior" and thus fewer girls are labeled as having behavior or cognitive problems (Bluechardt, Wiener & Shephard, 1995). The association between race and disability, after controlling for other factors, is murky (Mudrick, 2002). On the other hand, a clear association has been found between poverty and childhood disability, and family structure and disability. Children from families with low socioeconomic status and children from single-parent households have a greater likelihood of being disabled (Mudrick, 2002). Mudrick (2002) cautioned that socioeconomic status and family structure must be assessed via "acknowledgment of the role of societal limitation in disability" (Mudrick, 2002). In other words, it is important to distinguish between risk markers and risk factors. Low paychecks and single parenting in and of themselves probably don't contribute to disability. Exposure to lead, rats, and other environmental toxins might. Social structure barriers such as decreased access to health insurance, health care and delayed diagnoses also might. Professionals planning exercise programs for children with disabilities should think of childhood disability as an occurrence in the lives of boys and girls from all racial backgrounds that encompasses primarily (but not exclusively) cognitive and respiratory impairments. Professionals should canvas poor as well as affluent populations when recruiting children with disabilities for programs.

blog comments powered by Disqus