|
4.1 Experts
4.2 Sample
4.3 Testing Protocol
4.4 Testing
As described previously, the assessment of the availability, accessibility, effectiveness and quality of TTY services provided by federally regulated organizations included the following: - hiring qualified experts for the purpose of conducting the TTY testing, who understood the communications needs of people who are Deaf, deafened or hard of hearing, and who had prior experience in using telephonic systems of communication designed for these groups; and
- evaluating a sample of federally regulated organizations to determine whether they provide TTY services, and whether these services operate effectively.
The methodology selected for this review is the same as that of the first No Answer review. As in the previous study, researchers established a sample from a pre-determined list of potential respondents. These organizations’ websites were then searched for contact information and TTY listings. Expert contractors called the TTY numbers to assess their level of operation and reported on their findings and observations. They also formulated recommendations. Experts In the course of this project, qualified experts were hired who understood the communications needs of Deaf, deafened and hard of hearing people, and who have direct experience in using TTYs and in providing expert advice in this area. This approach ensured that issues surrounding complaints of discrimination in service delivery were well understood. Furthermore, they have also conducted the testing and provided expert advice in the previous review, which provided them with a good contextual background for the current review. These experts, one Anglophone and one Francophone, both of whom are deafened, carried out the actual tests. Their input and suggestions have been useful in finalizing this report. Sample The sample was derived from the Employer List compiled in August 2005 by the Commission’s Statistical Analysis Unit—Employment Equity Directorate. It lists 419 organizations from three main business sectors that are federally regulated (banks, communications and transportation). The first step was to review the list of organizations to ensure the list was pertinent to the Deaf and hard of hearing communities. A total of 232 entries were removed that do not have a general public orientation or would not be of interest to the target communities. For each of the remaining 187 organizations, researchers searched for a website or an entry in the online white or yellow pages. If no information was found on the organization, it was no longer considered as it may have ceased to exist since the list was compiled. This step further eliminated 29 organizations, leaving a total of 158. The next step consisted of searching the websites of these 158 organizations for a telephone number. If a telephone number was not listed, the organization was no longer considered. The reasoning behind this elimination was the notion of equal access. In other words, if a telephone number was not listed, a TTY should not have been expected either. This step eliminated 9 organizations, for a total of 149 considered organizations. Researchers then searched websites and telephone book listings for the remaining 149 organizations for a TTY number. Only 40 organizations had at least one listed TTY number. The resulting sample consisted of the listed TTYs of these 40 organizations. Figure 4: Methodology Establishing the Sample | CHRC list of federally regulated employers | 419 | | – not for general public / not relevant to target communities | 232 | | New total | 187 | | – no information available | 29 | | New total | 158 | | – no telephone available | 9 | | Total of organizations listing a telephone number | 149 | | – no TTY available | 109 | | Total of organizations listing a TTY (SAMPLE) | 40 |
When preparing the sample, the following factors were taken into account: - the number of TTYs listed on the website of each organization;
- the size of the organization (if more than one TTY was listed, larger organizations had more TTYs in the sample than did smaller organizations although the results were rolled up to the organization level);
- national coverage; and
- representation from all sectors of federally regulated organizations (banks, communications and transportation companies).
The final sample was as follows: Figure 5: Distribution of Sample per Sector
Testing Protocol The testing protocol was designed to test whether federally regulated organizations have operational TTYs and knowledgeable operators. When a TTY call was successful, the experts used the following script: Consulting and Audit Canada, on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is currently undertaking a study on TTY lines listed by federally regulated organizations. To complete this study, I am asking for your help in providing me with the following information: i) What do you do when you get a TTY call requesting service or program assistance? ii) What is the most common question you get asked?
Also, the experts provided contact information for Consulting and Audit Canada (CAC) for departmental records or in case someone wanted to discuss the test. This process helped ensure transparency, as the organization tested was informed that this call was in the context of a study. After each call, the experts completed a response form, recording the following: - date and duration of the call;
- type of response:
– text: the response was received from a TTY (the expected response); – voice: the response was received from a traditional telephone (not acceptable); – machine: an answering machine responded to the initial call (acceptable only if the call was returned within two working days); or – no response (not acceptable);
- call response time, if the caller had to leave a message on an answering machine (response within one, two or more than two working days, or no response at all); and
- the quality of the interaction—which included an assessment of courtesy, control of interaction, understanding and accuracy of information, use of proper TTY etiquette, other call-specific issues and overall quality—as rated on a five-point scale from one (very poor) to five (very high).
A call was characterized as responsive if it resulted in a text response or call return within two working days. See Appendix B for a copy of the response form. Testing The testing of the 40 organizations in the sample took place in December 2005. The consultants called their assigned TTY numbers from their personal TTY devices and recorded the results of the call on the response form. If the call was successful, they also kept a copy of the TTY transcript for reference. Altogether, 50 calls were placed, as some larger organizations had more than one TTY number. Out of these, three organizations had listed the TTY number of the Bell Relay Service (BRS) or the Bell TTY customer complaint line. These results were deemed unresponsive: when an organization advertises a TTY number, it should be its own and not that of a relay service. When a busy signal was received, or when a connection was dropped, the TTY number was called more than once until the test could be completed. When a call was unsuccessful or displayed a constant busy signal, the experts asked a hearing colleague to call the listed TTY number to verify if it was indeed a TTY number or a voice line. In some cases, a few organizations that had a responsive TTY refused to answer the short survey because they do not provide information to a third party or answer surveys on their TTY line. Some of these organizations called the CAC Project Manager directly to obtain contextual information on the review before deciding to call back the TTY line. However, the results of this review are not based on answers provided for the survey but rather on the quality of the interaction, therefore as long as there was a TTY exchange (even if this was a message from the organization saying they won’t complete the survey), the TTY was viewed as responsive.
|
Printable Version
Email This Page
