Contents 
| Contents |
Good data are needed for a wide range of purposes in the disability field. The basics of good data are well-defined data elements, which are part of a meaningful, holistic framework. Without a common conceptual framework we are left with only bits and pieces of unrelated data. (See Section 3)
The acceptance in Australia of the ICF as a useful conceptual framework for national data arose from years of discussion, consultation and testing (Madden et al. 2003). One of the main processes facilitating the testing of the ICF was the creation of a broad advisory group in 1996 to guide the improvement and unification of national data on disability. This group, consisting of people with disabilities, government departments responsible for policy, statisticians and other experts in the field, worked with the AIHW in both its roles, as a statutory authority with responsibility for improving national data on disability and as a WHO Collaborating Centre during the ICF development. The group made a significant contribution to both of the AIHW's tasks - improving national data consistency, and providing Australian input to the development of the ICF.
Additionally, definitions of disability currently used in Australia were examined to establish consistency and their relationship to the ICF (Madden & Hogan 1997). Many different definitions of disability are used in Australia, both in administrative data collections and in Acts of Parliament. Four main categories of definitions were identified:
broad inclusive definitions for population research and anti-discrimination measures (such as the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers and the 1992 Commonwealth Disability Discrimination Act)
definitions for generic or 'mainstream' services (such as education programs)
definitions for income support, insurance and social security (such as disability pensions and carer payments)
definitions for disability support services (such as Commonwealth, state and territory disability services legislation).
It was concluded that there could be no single definition of disability. The goal of disability data development was not to arrive at a single definition of disability but rather to define terms that could be used to relate definitions and data from different systems to each other. The draft ICIDH-2 was seen as a suitable framework in which to map functioning and disability.
The same is true of the final ICF. The terms 'functioning' and 'disability' are the overarching concepts of the classification - the more a person considers their activities to be limited or their participation to be restricted, the more they may describe themselves as having a disability. Likewise, a service may describe its eligibility criteria in terms of the activities with which people need assistance, the equipment they require to perform an activity without difficulty, or the participation they wish to increase. A different service may 'set the bar' to entry at a different point in the framework provided by the ICF.
The utility of the emerging ICF was broadly supported by other tests that explored its acceptability in the field of intellectual disability, and in two Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory (AIHW 2002a).
All these processes combined to confirm that most of the main disability definitions used in Australia could be mapped to the draft ICIDH-2. The draft ICIDH-2, and then the ICF, appeared to be a useful base on which to draft data elements for national data dictionaries.
| Contents |