Disability and The Americans with Disabilities Act

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed in 1990 to protect PWDs against discrimination and mandated that employers accommodate workers with disabilities unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Disability is a general term encompassing impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions (ADA, 1990). ADA defines discrimination in employment settings as the (1) denial of a position based on disability for which a person is qualified (Section 101-8), and (2) preventing reasonable accommodation to a qualified individual with a disability (Section 101-9).

According to the National Council of Disability, ADA's goals were to ensure PWDs' rights to equality of opportunity and independence (NCD, 1986). With ADA's passage, disability advocates envisioned the act would cease economic marginalization of PWDs and promote equality between employees with and without disabilities (Scotch, 2000). ADA provides a legal framework to combat discrimination and encourages the social goal of cultural and attitudinal acceptance of PWDs, often referred to as the "Spirit of ADA." ADA's passage was expected to engender a culture of compliance and accessibility in private and public sectors (NCD, 1986).

Despite these goals, the United States employment gap between PWDs and PWODs has not drastically narrowed (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2019). The NCD acknowledges federal policies and programs are not always structured and administered effectively to reflect and advance these goals. "Federal programs and laws that should serve as paths toward this goal have often deviated or even retreated from it" (NCD, 1986, An Assessment of Federal Laws section, para. 2).

To improve federal programs designed to further the goals of equal opportunity and independence, the NCD suggests "more emphasis should be given to federal programs encouraging and assisting private sector efforts to promote opportunities and independence for individuals with disabilities'' (NCD, 1986, An Executive Summary section, para. 2). Silverstein (2000) echoes the NCD's sentiment when he asserts that the principle of equality is comprised of social transformation including "genuine, effective, and meaningful treatment modifications of policies and procedures" (Silverstein, 2000, p. 1717).

The ADA did not include specific policies and procedures to optimally address PWDs' employment disparities. In the next section, we discuss the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability Form, an effort to improve the employment rate of people with disabilities.

The VSD Form

In response to the low PWD employment rate, former President Barack Obama passed Executive Order 13548 (E.O 13548) in 2010. This order requires that federal contractors with more than 50 or more employees meet hiring and retention goals for PWDs. Federal contractors, which include businesses that provide goods or services to or on behalf of the government, are encouraged to ensure at least seven percent of their workforce is comprised of employees with disabilities. The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) regulations ensure the federal government acts in accordance with section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 503 is a law that prohibits any federal agency from receiving governmental funding to discriminate against individuals with disabilities in employment settings (OFCCP, n.d.).

The VSD form is intended to collect disability information on applicants and current employees to help contractors attain the 7% goal for recruiting and hiring purposes. "The two-page self-identification form provides: (1) information explaining why the applicant or employee is being asked to complete the form; (2) nonexclusive examples of disabilities to help applicants and employees assess whether they have a disability; and (3) information about reasonable accommodation laws" (Bromberg, 2014). When completing the VSD form, applicants must select one of three options for self-identification: 1. Yes, I have a disability, or have a history/record of having a disability; 2. No, I don't have a disability, or have a history/record of having a disability; 3. I don't wish to answer.

Applicants must decide whether they identify as having a disability and whether they choose to disclose said disability on the VSD form. Regardless of the self-identification option applicants select, employers only learn that applicants have a disability. Employers do not receive information regarding the type of disability and how it may influence the employees' performance. Although information from the VSD form can inform employers about the number of disabled individuals in the organization, it provides little practical insight concerning accommodations and procedures. However, as suggested by Young and Kan (2015), "It [VSD form] protects the company from having 'too much' information, which it could potentially be accused of using for discriminatory purposes" (p. 10).

The U.S. Department of Labor's intent is to motivate companies to foster inclusive environments where employees feel safe revealing their disabilities and disclosure does not impede employment. The form's primary purpose is to increase the employment rate of PWDs. According to OFCCP (n.d.), an employer must explicitly state that 1. the information being requested is on a voluntary basis; 2. the information will remain confidential; 3. refusal to self-identify will not result in negative repercussions, and 4. the information will be used in agreement with the ADA and federal laws that require affirmative action (e.g., Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act).

Although the decision to self-identify as an individual with a disability on the VSD form is entirely up to the applicant, employers are increasingly adopting the ADA spirit by encouraging applicants and employees to do so. Self-identifying on the VSD form can lead to hiring and retaining a higher number of qualified PWDs, capitalizing on their unique skill sets and experiences. Employers will also benefit by fostering a diverse and inclusive organization.

As of 2015, however, only 13% of contractors met or exceeded the seven percent quota for employees with disabilities (Young & Kan, 2015). Although not considered a violation, failure to meet this quota should encourage companies to understand why they fell short of the target. The OFCCP (n.d.) asks federal contractors who do not meet this quota to assess whether their organization has any barriers to equal employment opportunities for PWDs and to take the necessary steps to correct them. Because few companies are meeting the quota, a closer look at the VSD form and its outcomes is warranted. Specifically, understanding how individuals perceive the VSD form can provide invaluable insight about the form's effectiveness.

Interpretations of the VSD Form

Many organizations, including Marriott Hotels and Duke University, have adopted the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability (VSD) form in their screening and hiring processes. The Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability form invites job applicants to voluntarily disclose whether they currently have or previously have had a physical and/or mental health disability. The VSD form lists 16 health disabilities — 12 physical and four mental—including autism, schizophrenia, and cancer. Organizations also present the form to current employees every five years to provide them the opportunity to disclose a disability (U.S. Department of Labor, n.d.).

Since the VSD form's inception in 2014, little research has examined outcomes resulting from its use. Lockhart (2017) found current employees with "invisible" disabilities (e.g., depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder) had different concerns about disclosure on the VSD form than those with visible conditions (e.g., blindness, missing limbs), including their interpersonal relationships and disability identities. Moreover, four of the 10 participants interviewed reported they did not disclose their conditions via the VSD form. The current study extends these findings by examining participants' perceptions of the VSD form when used during the job application process.

Despite limited research, the VSD form has gained media attention. Job seekers have turned to social media to express their confusion, dismay, or approval, providing anecdotal evidence on how people react to the form. Upon analyzing the comments section in a 2016 article titled, "Why You Should Self-Identify If You Have a Disability" and Reddit blog posts (2016), we noted the following remarks in the comment sections:

Comment 1: "It is great that contractors want to know if you are disabled…but what happens when you don't know if you are disabled?"

Comment 2: "There are a few reasons why they might ask about disability. One is for a diversity issue (ex. saying 'X% of our applicants said they are disabled') They also might be trying to short-circuit the issue of whether someone is actually capable of performing a job, but this can be an issue."

Comment 3: "If you offer the information, they MAY use it against you but mask their decision as 'other more qualified candidates…'"

As this anecdotal evidence indicates, the form has generated different questions and interpretations among job seekers. During the application process, the VSD form is an artifact signaling the company's values and priorities, which may be interpreted differently among applicants.

Identification and Disability Modes

Applicants typically must identify with having a disability to indicate they have a disability on the form. An identity includes the "traits and characteristics, social relations, roles, and social group memberships that define who a person is" (Oyserman et al., 2012, p. 69). Young adults with disabilities often do not self-identify as having a disability. Nario Redmond et al. (2013) found that 7–18% of their sample with a disability self-identified as "nondisabled" or "able-bodied."

The field of disability studies primarily favors a "social model" to define disability identity, meaning identity is defined and influenced by structures including legislation and social attitudes (Oliver, 1996; Shakespeare, 2006). Disability scholars distinguish between a medical model that characterizes disability as a functional limitation due to mental or physical impairments and the social model that characterizes disability as a reflection of external barriers and disadvantages (Altman, 2001; Darling & Heckert, 2010; Williams, 2001). The medical model is based partly on the assumption that the experience of disability is inherently negative, and therefore a primary goal for PWDs is to improve or correct their impairments to achieve ''normalcy'' (Linton, 1998). In contrast, the social model recognizes that policies, institutional practices, and physical environments can restrict access for PWDs and elicit systematic discrimination, resulting in disability-related problems (Scotch & Schriner, 1997; Shakespeare, 2006). The social model is often preferred over the medical model as social and cultural factors create universal difficulties for PWDs, regardless of biological characteristics of impairments (Barnes & Mercer, 2001). The social model emphasizes policy efforts to increase economic and social inclusion of PWDs (Schur et al., 2013). For this study, we reference both the medical and social models to understand how PWDs interpret the VSD form.

Disclosing a Disability

Organizational policies that limit flexibility and create negative attitudes among coworkers have been shown to decrease disclosure rates among employees with disabilities (Colella, et al., 2004; Paetzold, et al., 2008). The signals communicated by an organization can discourage PWDs' identification with and disclosure of a disability (Chaudoir & Quinn, 2010; Clair et al., 2005). As a result, individuals who perceive disapproving work environments may conceal a disability (Baldridge & Veiga, 2001). Von Schrader et al. (2014) found that when companies provided explicit support for employees with disabilities during recruitment, the rate of disability disclosure was significantly higher than in organizations without such explicit support. Therefore, an applicant's decision to disclose a disability is a function of internalized beliefs cued by signals in an organization.

Disclosing a disability in the workplace can result in positive outcomes such as desired workplace accommodations and/or social support for the prospective employee. However, it can also lead to negative outcomes including stigmatization, lowered expectations, and isolation from colleagues (Von Schrader et al., 2014). Managing disabilities in the workplace is important because mismanagement can negatively affect productivity, absenteeism, and employee retention (Irvine, 2011). Von Schrader et al. (2011) found 68% of employees reported that seeking an accommodation was a primary reason for divulging their disability. However, their study identified "the risk of not being hired" as a significant factor in dissuading individuals from making requests for workplace accommodations. Unique to the workplace, individuals not only consider personal risks involved with disclosure, but also professional risks. Disclosure represents a fine balance between receiving social support and accommodations on the one hand and fearing negative consequences that inhibit it on the other. The stigma associated with a chronic health disability might devalue the individual's identity in the workplace. Thus, identity management, defined by Toth and Dewa (2014) as "the strict control of information related to the stigmatizing attribute" (p. 733), is critical for individuals who wish to maintain a reputable identity in the organization. In the context of this study, an organization's use of the VSD form may signal to the applicant that the company will either favorably or unfavorably respond to health disclosures.

Signal Theory

According to signal theory (Spence, 1973), job seekers can be attracted to specific jobs based on the signals or cues organizations send through recruitment materials and hiring practices. Applicants rely on signals to reduce uncertainty and to form judgments about the company. Signal theory suggests that, in the absence of other information during the recruitment process, applicants rely on peripheral cues, or salient signals that require little effort to process, to form an impression about the organization. Signals may include branding, policies, mission statements, and requirements. McNall et al. (2010) suggest that observable organizational policies including maternity leave and medical leave can be signals regarding unobservable characteristics such as care and concern for employees. Related to the current study, Braddy et al. (2006) found applicants drew inferences about an organization's culture based on the website's design features and content regarding organizational values, awards, policies, and goals.

To appear competent, organizations intentionally communicate positive information that may otherwise be imperceptible to stakeholders. Despite intentions, however, not all signals organizations communicate are interpreted positively. Applicants attend to different signals or perceive the same signal differently (Highhouse et al., 2007). Receivers/applicants may assign more importance to a signal that is consistent with their values than an antithetical signal, or they may cognitively distort a signal so the message is more consistent with their viewpoints (Ehrhart & Zieger, 2005).

By 2050, the American labor force growth rate is predicted to drop to 0.7% (Toossi, 2012). As the number of applicants per vacancy declines, organizations may experience greater pressure to develop strategic recruitment strategies. To successfully recruit in a competitive market, employers signal to applicants their competencies and strengths through materials such as the VSD form (Spence, 1974). If an applicant perceives the signals (e.g., VSD form) a company communicates as inconsistent, inaccurate, or unethical, they may form negative impressions of a company. With respect to the VSD form, interpretations of this signal as credible and appealing can influence select populations (Tirole, 1990). If applicants perceive the signal as credible and the prospective employer as trustworthy, applicants may assume decreased risk with future employment with the organization.

Signal Theory and PWODs

Although the current study focuses on PWDs' experiences, it is also critical to understand people without disabilities' (PWODs) perspectives of the VSD form. Although the form targets PWDs, PWODs still complete this form during the job application process. This form could potentially reinforce or dissuade a PWODs' decision to apply to companies using this form. Gilliland (1993) claimed that applicants who viewed the recruitment-selection process as unfair would be less likely to accept a job offer than those who perceive it as fair. Perceiving recruitment procedures as unfair may engender disdain and concern from all applicants. An organization's fair and just actions signal that it can be trusted and affiliation with the company is not risky. Lind (2001) found that demonstrating fairness is particularly important during the early stages of employment when uncertainty is high. The initial events (e.g., the recruitment process) influence the lens through which people interpret organizational actions. Thus, recruitment procedures, including the VSD form, can influence all applicants' confidence and decision to become members of an organization.

Signal Theory and PWDs

With respect to PWDs, observable signals regarding flexibility and individualized consideration may communicate whether a disability identity will be valued or devalued in an organization. According to Greene (2009), "people do not share without attempting to estimate reactions of others for their own protection and safety" (p.226). Individuals depend on signals transmitted by the organization to gauge the organization's anticipated responses to a disclosure. Jans et al. (2012) found participants with disabilities sought positive signals from organizations, including mission statements addressing disability and diversity initiatives, before disclosing their disabilities in the hiring process.

Guided by the ADA's goals, the Department of Labor designed the VSD form to provide "equal opportunity to qualified people with disabilities." Policies and procedures that protect employees and applicants with disabilities may suggest societal attitudes are becoming more accepting of disabilities, thus potentially encouraging more individuals to embrace a disability identity (Onken & Slaten, 2000). The VSD form also encourages identification and disclosure with the following sentence: "Identifying yourself as an individual with a disability is voluntary, and we hope that you will choose to do so."

Although identification and disclosure are encouraged, the VSD form may also deter PWDs from completing this form. The signals may communicate disabilities are devalued, causing individuals to conceal or minimize their disability to preserve a competent occupational identity (Kosciulek, 2007). An applicant may perceive the signal of a company's use of VSD form as a discriminatory measure designed to "screen out" PWDs, and thus may perceive the form negatively. PWDs may not apply for a position if they view use of the form as unethical and prejudiced, and therefore, discriminatory. Such applicants may believe the company's values do not align with their own, making the organization less attractive and, consequently, refrain from applying.

Research tends to focus on employers and coworkers' (i.e., observers) responses to disabilities in the workplace. Few studies, however, have focused on the perspectives of applicants with disabilities; PWDs' perspectives may not coincide with the perspectives and expectations of employers. For example, PWDs lack substantive information about the organization's climate, making recruitment materials more salient. Gaining insight into a disabled applicant's perspective also has important implications for disability-related policies and procedures. The onus of disclosure is on the employee as they are often required to disclose a disability to receive accommodations and protections (ADA, 2008). Therefore, the applicant's interpretation of the VSD form as a means to disclosure can shed light on current policies and procedures.

Seeking PWDs' opinions on federal forms can inform policymakers about whether these materials promote ADA's goals and encourage disclosure. Additional insight can also help policymakers remove barriers PWDs experience when navigating the recruitment and hiring process. This study focuses on individuals' perceptions of a signal particularly relevant to PWDs - the Voluntary Self-Identification of Disability (VSD). To understand what characteristics of the organization are "signaled" by the VSD form, we examined the following research question:

RQ1: How do individuals interpret the VSD form during the job application process?

Measures

Study Design

As part of a larger project, researchers asked respondents to review the VSD form during a hypothetical job application process. Respondents then answered open-ended questions about how they perceived the VSD form. Next, respondents indicate whether they believed the form was designed to increase or decrease the number of disabled individuals in the workplace. Thereafter, they provided demographic information and whether they have one of the disabilities listed on the VSD form. Respondents were asked to indicate specifically which disorder(s) they have by selecting the box next to the disorders that apply. Moreover, respondents indicated whether they have previously encountered the VSD form when applying for a job vacancy.

Interpretation of VSD Form – All respondents

RQ1 asked how participants interpret the VSD form. To answer this question, we completed a thematic analysis of participants' responses to open-ended questions. To assess the coding reliability of the primary coder/author, an outside coder not familiar with the study coded 23.4% of the responses using the codebook created by the first author. The coefficient of reliability for the two coders was .75, indicating acceptable agreement.

A total of 472 participants provided 1,210 interpretations of the VSD form. Analysis revealed thirteen themes: Discrimination, Privacy Violation, Assumption of Dishonesty, Legal Reasons, Format, Format Problems, Format Strengths, Accommodations, Equality, Person-Job Fit, Positive Assessment- No Explanation, Neutral Assessment- No Explanation, Negative Assessment- No Explanation. These themes were further coded as positive, negative, neutral, or conflicting codes/interpretations. Discrimination, privacy violation, assumption of dishonesty, and format problems were coded as negative interpretations; legal reasons, person-job fit, and format were coded as neutral interpretations; and accommodations, equality, and format strengths were coded as positive interpretations. To triangulate the data, 38.6% of the PWDs reported negative interpretations, 18.2% reported positive, 22.7% reported neutral, and 20.5% reported conflicting. In total, 31.8% of all individuals reported negative interpretations, 29.9% reported positive, 21% reported neutral, and 16.5% reported conflicting. Moreover, 58.1% percent of respondents indicated that the form was designed to "decrease" the number of disabled individuals in the workplace rather than "increase." Triangulation refers to the application of various methods to analyze the same phenomena (Patton, 1999). In the current study, the interpretations associated with the VSD form were found through qualitative, open-ended questions and a survey item question regarding the purpose of the form. The primary themes are addressed in the next section. Appendix A presents the codebook used in this analysis.

Negative Interpretations

Neutral Interpretations

Positive Interpretations

Conflicting Interpretations

Responses were coded as "conflicting" when the responses included both a negative and positive interpretation. For example, a respondent commented,

"In some cases, I think this is a violation of privacy and the equal employment opportunities. On the other hand, I think that this form does provide people the ability to disclose personal information about their health that would require special on the job accommodations."

The primary coder coded this response as "violation of privacy" and "discrimination" (i.e., negative interpretations) as well as "accommodations" (i.e., positive interpretation). As a second example, the primary coder coded the response below as "accommodations" (positive interpretation) and discrimination (negative interpretation).

"I think that it can be very important for your employer to know if you have any disabilities so then they can provide you with the assistance you need. I could also see it as being a little wrong in a sense because some employers may not want to hire someone because they have major depression. With depression there are medications and the person with depression could be totally normal during the day but the employer turns them down just because of the label of being depressed. I do get it if someone has missing limbs because some jobs may require you to lift heavy items and that could be a potential liability."

In total, 79 respondents (16.7%) provided conflicting interpretations. When a response included a positive and neutral interpretation or a negative and neutral interpretation, the response was coded as "positive interpretation" or "negative interpretation" respectively.

Signals

The U.S. Department of Labor designed the VSD form to enable the inclusion of disabled workers in the workplace and increase the employment rate of PWDs. These goals coincide with ADA's goals of equality of opportunity and independence. Most respondents in the current study, however, interpreted the VSD form (signal) as discriminatory, with 58.1% percent indicating that the form was designed to "decrease" the number of disabled individuals in the workplace rather than "increase." Conversely, only 62 PWODs and 8 PWDs of 472 respondents (14%) noted that the form promoted "equality." This finding suggests that job applicants generally do not interpret the form as intended by the ADA. As a respondent explained, "I understand what they are trying to do, however I feel that people [applicants] would automatically assume they will be disqualified for having a disability and sharing the info before you [they] get hired."

Relatedly, respondents (N=43) also perceived the VSD form as a mechanism to violate privacy. Violating one's privacy and requesting information considered personal may lead to adverse reactions and perceptions from applicants (Bauer et al., 2006). Policymakers and employers should consider the information an applicant has a right to keep private and how exercising that right influences an individual's professional opportunities.

The benefits associated with recruitment materials, however, including accommodations and person-job fit, may counterbalance privacy risks. With knowledge of a person's disability, employers can provide appropriate accommodations to improve working conditions. Moreover, employers can better assess person-job fit with disability-related information. As one respondent noted,

"I like the opportunity to identify myself as disabled. Should the hiring team agree that my disability would be a detriment to the job, it would be better if I was not hired in the first place. Including management in the personal aspects of disability during the hiring process would afford opportunity to identify some potential problems before they arise."

Providing accommodations to employees with disabilities has legal repercussions. Although not positively or negatively-valenced, legal reasons for the VSD form were mentioned by approximately 34 percent of the respondents, with references to financial incentives, liability protection, and federal quotas associated with the form,

The format of the document and the information provided also provoked positive, negative, and neutral reactions. Although some respondents commented on the form's direct and organized format, others sought additional information and instruction. "You are checking a box saying yes or no, but not even explaining which one or your situation. This leads me to believe the employer doesn't really care what you are struggling with, only that you are disabled," a respondent commented.

Although there were no major differences between PWDs' and PWODs' interpretations of the VSD form, PWDs were much more likely to report legal reasons (48.86% PWDs; 29.43% PWODs) and discrimination (32.95% of PWDs; 22.14% of PWODs), whereas PWODs were more likely to report person-job fit (32.95% of PWDs; 63.02% of PWODs) and equality (4.55% of PWDs; 5.73% of PWODs). PWDs may be more familiar with the legal implications of reporting disabilities with institutions than PWODs due to past experiences. PWDS may also be more sensitive to potential discriminatory practices than those without disabilities. Individuals with health disabilities come to expect perceptions of incompetence and rejection from others. Research suggests that minorities are more aware of and sensitive to signals conveying discriminatory practices than non-minority populations (Branscombe et al., 1999).

A large number of PWODs' likely interpreted person-job fit because employers often use application materials to assess person-job fit, regardless of whether the application item includes disability-related information. PWODs reported equality as a primary theme more than PWDs. As suggested earlier, job applicants may not interpret the form as intended by ADA. Although we did not examine why individuals interpreted the form as they did, we speculate PWODs may be more likely to assume an organization's positive intentions, while PWDs may have lower expectations of equal treatment due to greater difficulties securing employment.

Signals and Disability Models

Although the form's purpose is to collect disability information from PWDs to attract and accommodate employees, our findings suggest the form may not be achieving its intended goal in the United States. Nearly 60% of participants perceived the form as a strategy to decrease the number of disabled individuals in the organization. This finding is consistent with previous research. Lockart (2017) found that seven out of ten individuals with mental health disabilities would not disclose their conditions in the future, regardless of whether they received accommodations. "Participants would rather ask for accommodation on an 'as-needed basis' instead of 'checking a box' that could permanently define his or her identity as 'inferior'" (Lockhart, 2017, p. 121).

Consistent with both the medical and social models, the current study's findings suggest applicants hold differing views of the VSD form. The medical model assumes PWDs are objectified and labeled abnormal from other functioning members of society. Checking a box to indicate an individual is disabled may subjugate PWDs into feeling their qualifications and employment are based on their disability. As one respondent noted, "I did experience an initial trepidation when I saw it. Specifically, when they list out different classifications of disability, it felt as though they were singling out people with these conditions." With most forms of affirmative action such as a quota, classification is needed so recipients are recorded and acknowledged. This may be problematic, however, in that classification is typically dominated by the medical profession, contributing to the predominance of the medical model of disability (Oliver, 1990). However, consistent with the social model, some participants recognized that the VSD form is a procedure to reduce societal barriers to employment for PWDs. As one respondent noted, "I like how the government is providing equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities because they should receive the same rights as any other person."

To avoid labeling, organizations may consider other ways applicants and employees can share their health information. Creating a culture of acceptance and talking openly about health and accommodations may encourage individuals to disclose their disability on their own time (Young & Kan, 2015). Moreover, offering multiple ways to share health information is beneficial. In Young and Kan (2018)'s report, they recommend organizations should have at least two official ways by which employees can share health information, including anonymous and non-anonymous mechanisms. The survey found organizations that use anonymous and non-anonymous self-identification methods have a higher percentage of employees with disabilities than companies who use just one self-identification method. These changes can better ensure the US Department of Labor's policies are grounded in the social model rather than the medical model of disability.

Implications for Signal Theory

This study applied signal theory to the recruitment process and identified the various perceptions in relation to the same signal — the VSD form. Future research should extend signal theory to account for the interplay of various signals relevant to the recruitment process and examine how impactful these signals are at various points during the job process. Chapman et al., (2005) found that signals about recruiter characteristics (i.e., values, demographics) had a weaker association with job-organizational attraction than other characteristics such as job-organization characteristics. This was especially true during the early stages of the hiring process, suggesting applicants depend less on signals from recruiters as more information about the job and organization is known.

Limitations and Future Research

As of April 2023, the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) released a revised version of the VSD form. The study was conducted in the Spring of 2019 using the previous version of the VSD form. Compared to the previous two-page VSD form, the current version of the form is one page and some of the verbiage has been modified. The current form also states that completion is voluntary, but it now states that "We [employer] have a goal of having at least 7% of our workers as people with disabilities. The law says we must measure our progress towards this goal."

The updated form also retains the section providing examples of disabilities, but has expanded to include the following: "Alcohol or other substance abuse disorder," "Autoimmune disorder," "Cardiovascular or heart disease," "Celiac disease," "Deaf or serious difficulty hearing," "Gastrointestinal disorders," and "Nervous system conditions."

The self-identification options have also been slightly modified. The previous "YES, I HAVE A DISABILITY (or previously had a disability)" is now "Yes, I have a disability, or have had one in the past." The previous "NO, I DON'T HAVE A DISABILITY" is now "No, I do not have a disability and have not had one in the past." Respondents continue to have the option to decline and can select, "I do not want to answer." The previous and current versions of the VSD form are located in Appendix B.

Although this study was conducted prior to the form's changes, the findings from the current study are likely still applicable and reflective of applicants' perspectives of the current VSD form. The information on the form remains fairly consistent between both versions of the form with slight changes in verbiage. Due to the superficial changes made, the interpretations of the previous version of the VSD form likely still hold true for the current version of the VSD form. However, the current study's findings could be minimized due to changes to the federal mandate.

Another potential limitation is that the sample primarily consisted of undergraduate, female students. Future studies should address how individuals with little or more education respond to the VSD form to generate findings that are more generalizable to the public.

While the present study provides important contributions to the literature by identifying how individuals in the United States interpret a company's use of the VSD form and applicants' likelihood to disclose a disability on the form, it does not address how those interpretations may influence actual outcomes. For example, our research did not examine whether PWDs will actually disclose a disability on the VSD form or whether they will apply for a job position. Future research examining such outcomes would provide important theoretical and practical insights.

Finally, the present study examined only the signal receiver's perspective. However, an applicant's response to the form (i.e., Yes, No, or I choose not to respond) also conveys a signal to the employer about the applicant. Signal theory explicates an exchange of signals between the applicant and the employer, where employers are also assessing the weight and valence of a signal sent by the applicant. Despite the form's voluntary nature, choosing not to respond on the VSD form still sends a message to the employer, whether positive or negative. Future research should examine how employers interpret various signals conveyed by the applicant to provide insight on hiring behaviors and decisions.

Practical Implications

As the number of applicants per vacancy declines, organizations will experience greater pressure to develop strategic recruitment strategies to increase the number of applicants for a given vacant position. Barber and Roehling (1993) emphasized the importance of effective recruitment, stating, "the ultimate cost of failure to attract applicants may be an organization's failure" (p. 845). Similar to other recruitment initiatives, the VSD form can be associated with positive and negative outcomes.

Results of the present study have implications for employers and policymakers. First, practitioners should consider whether the VSD form is achieving its intended purpose of promoting inclusivity. Applicants may be deterred from revealing health information or applying if they perceive the form as discriminatory or confusing. Several respondents reported confusion and dismay about the vagueness of terms such as "disclosure" and "disability." To reduce confusion and perceived discrimination, policy makers should consider changing the format and wording of the VSD form. Emphasizing "person-job fit" on recruitment materials has proven to be effective when targeting specialized populations (Dineen & Noe, 2009). Dineen and Noe (2009) found that emphasizing needs-supplies fit, especially when modified to the preferences of the targeted population, can influence the quality of applications. Need-supplies fit refers to the physical and psychological resources, including accommodations, the employer can offer and the "needs, desires, and preferences" of the employee. Rather than leading with political and legal motives, policymakers should consider emphasizing accommodations and resources on the form to improve recruitment of PWDs. As one respondent noted, "The first sentence…makes it seem like an obligation for the company to go through this process and hire those with disabilities. This is not welcoming to those who qualify." Perhaps an introductory sentence on the VSD form could state, "To recruit, accommodate, and enable people with disabilities in the workplace, the federal VSD form is intended…."

Completely omitting information about governmental relations, however, is not advised because applicants value transparency and directness. Research shows organizations that clearly state relevant organizational policies were effective in transmitting the company's trademarks of diversity, rewards, and supportiveness. Moreover, Turner and Pratkanis (1994) found selection procedures that did not provide explicit information about the company's expectations were perceived by recipients as less fair than procedures that did. With most recruitment initiatives, the more information provided to justify the use, the better well an initiative can fare.

Conclusion

Most respondents perceived the VSD form as a way to decrease the number of PWDs in the workplace. Policy makers should modify the VSD form to deemphasize the discrimination associated with disabilities. For example, as stated by a respondent, "You are checking a box saying yes or no but not even explaining which one or your situation. This leads me to believe the employer doesn't really care what you are struggling with, only that you are disabled."

Including statements that emphasize inclusivity and diversity on the form may help address this issue and ensure the signal (i.e., the VSD form) is positively perceived. If more applicants positively interpret the VSD form, then the federal government may be able to achieve its intended goal of increasing the quota of disabled workers in U.S.' organizations. With more insight on organizational signals, employers and policy makers can develop diversity recruitment initiatives and materials to improve the application process for people with disabilities. As one respondent noted, "In the name of making sure they're doing a good job of attracting diversity, there must be a better way than this of collecting their data."