본 연구의 목적은 장애인 고용의 질을 측정할 수 있는 지표와 척도를 개발하는 것이다. 장애인 고용의 질 지표 구성은 델파이방법을 이용하였고, 지표 간 가중치 결정은 계층분석적 의사결정방법(AHP)을 활용하였다. 본 연구 결과 장애인 고용의 질 지표는 6개의 상위 지표와 16개의 하위지표로 구성되는데, 6개 상위지표는 고용안정성, 발전가능성, 보상, 근무조건, 관계, 장애인식 및 이해도 이고, 16개 하위지표는 고용형태, 고용안정감, 숙련향상 가능성, 승진가능성, 교육훈련기회, 급여, 부가급여, 근무시간, 근무환경, 노동강도, 대인관계, 참여/발언, 장애이해, 편의시설, 공평성, 적절한 배려이다. 도출된 고용의 질 상위지표에 대한 상대적 가중치는 고용안정성(E)이 26.08%, 발전가능성(D)이 16.18%, 근무조건(C)이 16.02%, 장애인식 및 이해도(U)가 15.83%, 보상(I)이 13.53%, 관계(R)가 12.36%의 값을 갖는다. 상위지표에 대한 하위지표의 상대적 가중치는 고용안정성은 고용형태가 51.44%, 고용안정감이 48.75%; 발전가능성은 교육훈련기회가 34.28%, 승진가능성이 33.86%, 숙련향상 가능성이 31.87%; 근무조건은 작업환경이 44.46%, 노동강도가 31.29%, 근무시간이 24.27%; 장애인식 및 이해도는 적절한 배려가 40.32%, 공평성이 33.30%, 편의시설이 26.38%; 보상은 급여가 72.62%, 부가급여가 27.38%; 관계는 장애이해가 39.66%, 대인관계가 36.62%, 참여/발언이 23.73%의 가중치를 갖는다.
The purpose of this study is to develop the indicators and measurement to measure the quality of employment for the disabled. The Delphi method was used to compose the quality of employment indicators. The Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP) was applied to determine the weights of the indicators. The results of this study were as follows: First, the indicators to measure the quality of employment consisted of 6 superordinate indicators and 16 subordinate indicators. The 6 superordinate indicators are: employment security (E); possibility of development (D); income security (I); work condition (C), relationship (R); and cognition and understanding of disability (U). The 16 subordinate indicators are: employment type (ET); sense of employment security (SES); possibility of skill (PS); possibility of promotion (PP); opportunity of education and training (OET); pay (P); fringe benefit (FB); work time (WT); work environment (WE); intensity of work (IW); interpersonal relation (IR); participation/opinion (PO); understanding of disability (UD); disabled facilities (DF); fairness (F); and proper solicitude (PS). Second, the relative weights of superordinate indicators were as follows: employment security 26.08%; possibility of development 16.18%; work condition 16.02%; cognition and understanding of disability 15.83%; Income security 13.53%; and relationship 12.36%. The relative weights of subordinate indicators to superordinate indicators were as follows: ‘ncome security’indicator involves pay 72.62% and fringe benefit 27.38%, ‘ognition and understanding of disability’indicator involves proper solicitude 40.32%, fairness 33.30%, disabled facilities 26.38%, ‘elationship’indicator involves understanding of disability 39.66%, interpersonal relationship 36.62%, participation/opinion 23.73%, ‘ork condition’indicator involves work environment 44.46%, intensity of work 31.29%, work time 24.27%, ‘mployment security’£ indicator involves employment type 51.44%, sense of employment security 48.75%, ‘ossibility of development’indicator involves opportunity of education and training 34.28%, possibility of promotion 33.86%, and possibility of skill 31.87%.