A Study on Disaster Response Performance Among People with Disabilities in South Korea Using the Latent Profile Analysis: Exploring Influencing Factors and Verifying Differences in Life Satisfaction

Background and Purpose: This study aims to classify Disaster response performance types among people with disabilities, identify influencing factors, and examine differences in life satisfaction across these types.

Methods: Data from the 5th wave(2022) of the Disability and Life Dynamics Panel by the Korea Disabled People’s Development Institute(KDPDI) were used, involving 4,035 individuals with disabilities aged 19 and older. Disaster response performance-defined as actions taken during emergencies-was assessed through six subdomains: reporting to emergency services, notifying others, knowledge of fire safety tools' locations, ability to use a fire extinguisher, capacity to reach a shelter, and ability to recognize emergency situations. Influencing factors were categorized into five groups: sociodemographic(gender, age, education, marital status), disability-related(type, severity), health(subjective health, ADL limitations), environmental(housing conditions), and disaster-safety factors(awareness of disaster response training). Latent Profile Analysis(LPA) was applied to classify performance types, followed by a three-step approach: (1) modeling latent classes based on indicators, (2) assigning individuals to their most likely class, and (3) examining the effects of predictors and outcomes accounting for classification errors. The BCH method under DU3STEP was used to analyze the relationship between performance types and life satisfaction.

Results: Three distinct performance types were identified: Passive responders(10.5%), Moderate responders(35.3%), and Active responders(54.2%). Passive responders showed low performance across all subdomains, while Moderate responders performed slightly better but below average. Compared to the active response group, individuals were more likely to belong to the passive group if they were female, had severe disabilities, were in poor health, had greater limitations in daily activities, and lived in poor housing conditions. Additionally, compared to the active response group, individuals were more likely to be in the moderate response group if they were older, had a mental disability, experienced greater limitations in daily activities, were unaware of disaster response education or training, and lived in inadequate housing conditions. In summary, differences in group characteristics were significantly predicted by gender, age, type and severity of disability, health status, and awareness of comprehensive disaster response education and training. Lastly, the analysis of life satisfaction across the response types revealed significant differences among all groups.

Conclusions and Implications: The results emphasize the need for differentiated strategies to improve disaster response performance among people with disabilities. First, the identification of three performance types indicates that people with disabilities should not be approached as a uniform group; instead, policies must be tailored to reflect their diverse needs. Second, educational and training programs should be stratified to reflect both shared and distinct influencing factors across groups. Lastly, the observed differences in life satisfaction imply that disaster preparedness impacts not only physical survival but also overall well-being. Further research is needed to explore how specific aspects of disaster response performance contribute to quality of life.