Conceptual Models of Disability: The Development of the Consideration of Non-Biomedical Aspects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please find the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your gracious response.

You have raised some important points.

I have now mentioned that I only evaluated models in the English language and consulted English and German literature.

I agree with you that the original diagrams are better than the incomplete re-interpretations. I have not included them due to copyright reasons. However, now I have contacted all right holders or ascertained the copyright status. Now I can replace “my” re-interpretations of the ICF and the DCP diagrams with reproductions that come close to the originals. For the first and second generations, I have left the summarizing diagrams. However, I am now able to include eight 8 and reproduced diagrams from the models of generations 1 and 2, which are very similar to the originals. I could not obtain permission for the remaining models. I hope you agree that this improves the quality and usability of the article.

Thank you for clearing up for me the distinction between participation (from the perspective of the person) and inclusion (perspective of the environment). I did wrongfully write inclusion situation in the diagram of the DCP and have changed it accordingly. However, in my conception, components like disability (Nagi) or participation (ICF) still belong to the social dimension, because they take place in the social realm.

I have also changed the grammatical error, you have mentioned.

I have marked all changes yellow now. Additionally, now I have deleted the page numbers in indirect quotes since the editor told me that this is okay – do you think I should include them again?

Your suggestions helped me to improve my contribution, many thanks. Was this, what you had in mind?

Kind regards

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a very interesting, well-structured paper, analysing three "generations of models", emphasizing the "non-biological" aspects.

For the analysis of the ICF it could be useful referring to Hirschberg 2009, as well as to Hurst 2003 and to Hurst 2000, for the development from the first to the second of the WHO-classifications of disability (ICIDH 1980 to ICF 2001) to Fougeyrollas/Beauregard 2001, as well.

It is very useful taking into account Biermann/Pfahl 2020 but it could be worthwhile explaining the relevance of their inquiry a little further.

Some sentences seem to be not clear or lacking a word as in p.1 lines 16-17: "These 16 concepts will be adapted to the disability". Here, "to the disability models" or "to the disability constructs" or "to disability" would offer a clearer understanding.

Thank you very much for your contribution!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your kind remarks and insightful suggestions.

I have consulted the important literary sources you have mentioned, especially the substantial and helpful discourse analysis of the ICF by Hirschberg 2009, which I have now quoted often. I also quote the disability rights organization perspective of Hurst now and have reread it with great benefit and used the article by Fougeyrollas / Beaureard (2001). With these sources, I have also slightly expanded my elaborations about the development process from ICIDH to ICF and the difference between the two models. I think this made the article better.

Bierman / Pfahl (2020) on the one hand point out how disability rights become more and more mentioned and enshrined in UN human rights documents – I quote this now when it comes to the impact of disability rights organizations. The most important point of their paper to me however is that a measurement (e.g. as a basis for interventions) of disability must also recognize environmental aspects, to respect the rights of people with disabilities. Was this the point you were referring to?

I have reread my article several times. Thank you for the mentioned mistake in the abstracts. The phrases you have suggested would work fine. To be consistent with the text below I will use phenomenon. For construct clarity, the term model might fit better because the concept should be tailored to evaluate the models. However, the triad disease/illness/sickness should be adapted from the disease phenomenon to the disability phenomenon. Since I need to be short in the abstract, I will use phenomenon for both, if this is alright with you.

Your suggestions helped me to improve my contribution, many thanks. Was this, what you had in mind?

I have marked all changes yellow now. Additionally, now I have deleted the page numbers in indirect quotes since the editor told me that this is okay – do you think I should include them again?

Kind regards

(the attached PDF contains the same text)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf