Webinar Invitation: Why Do Disability Prevalence Estimates Vary?

Understanding Differences Across Data Sets

Estimates of disability prevalence within the same country often vary across data sources. These differences may reflect the use of different definitions of disability, different question sets to identify the population with disabilities and different methods of data collection. These variations can create confusion for policymakers, researchers, and other data users.

The session will first explain how definitions of disability, question design and data collection methods influence who is identified as having disabilities. It will then present examples of prevalence estimates across data sources and illustrate how the choice of a data source can affect disaggregation of outcome measures by disability status. It will conclude with a panel discussion focused on practical guidance for data users including how to select appropriate data sources, interpret differences across datasets and communicate about variations in disability prevalence estimates.

When: Tuesday, May 5th, 8:00 EDT

Where: Zoom

Duration: 1 hour 15 minutes (75 minutes)

Featured Speakers:

  • Jennifer Madans, Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG) and Center for Inclusive Policy (CIP), Moderator

  • Daniel Mont, Center for Inclusive Policy (CIP)

  • Sophie Mitra, Professor, Fordham University, and Founder, Disability Data Initiative (DDI)

  • Elizabeth Lockwood, CBM Global Disability Inclusion, Representative at the United Nations

The webinar will be conducted in English, and will be recorded and made available after the event. International Sign (IS) interpretation and live captioning will be provided. Please complete this short form to confirm your participation.

For any questions, you may contact us at office@inclusive-policy.org or paulina.ricci@inclusive-policy.org

Warm regards,

The CIP Team
Center for Inclusive Policy

Related Insights

This webinar explores how South Sudan transformed the collection of data on students with disabilities through its Education Management Information System (EMIS), moving from manual records to digital tools and incorporating the Washington Group Questions. This shift significantly improved data accuracy, increasing the number of identified students with disabilities from 6,000 to over 41,000, and helping reshape national education policy to be more inclusive.
Scroll to Top