For years, we’ve argued that audiovisual accessibility is not merely a set of techniques, but rather a way of understanding cinema itself. Yet convictions need data to back them up. That’s why, between February and March 2025, we decided to rigorously measure what happens when someone watches our film Inclusivity – Beyond Cinema. The results confirm something we had long suspected: there exists a gap between wanting to do things right and knowing how to do them.
Methodology: How We Measured Change
Working alongside Josep Solves from CEU Cardenal Herrera University, we administered a structured questionnaire before and after the film screening to 72 people who volunteered to participate. The instrument evaluated four dimensions through 20 questions on a 5-point Likert scale:
-
Technical knowledge (7 items)
-
Understanding of impact (2 items)
-
Attitudes and beliefs (6 items)
-
Behavioral intention (5 items)
This pre-post design allowed us to compare each participant’s responses before and after, thereby measuring the change attributable to the viewing experience.
Who Participated
Understanding the participants’ profile is essential for interpreting the results.
The sample consisted primarily of young women: 77.8% were women (56 participants), 19.4% men (14 participants), with an average age of 21.1 years. The youngest participant was 18 and the oldest 52, though the median of 19 years confirms that most were university students or recently entered the workforce.
Regarding disability, 90.3% (65 people) declared having none, while 5.6% (4 people) did, reporting physical, visual, and autism-related disabilities. One participant preferred not to specify.
Most significantly, nearly half the participants already had some connection to our field: 26.4% (19 people) were familiar with the disability sector and 15.3% (11 people) worked or studied in culture and communication. In total, 44.5% of the sample had prior links to sectors related to audiovisual accessibility.
Before Viewing: Awareness Without Tools
Analysis of initial responses revealed a pattern that perfectly defines the current state of audiovisual accessibility.
1. Technical Knowledge: The Great Void
Scores in this dimension were systematically low, concentrated at 1-2 points out of 5. When we asked «would you know how to create audio description?» or «would you know how to implement accessible subtitles?», the overwhelming answer was a resounding no. Even participants working in the disability sector admitted not knowing how to apply these tools.
The lack of knowledge extended to more conceptual aspects as well: most were unfamiliar with specific regulations, unclear about the process of creating and distributing an accessible film, and lacked information about challenges and opportunities in the sector.
2. Attitudes: Conviction Without Action
In stark contrast, initial attitudes were highly favorable, with scores of 4-5 points. Participants expressed:
-
High concern about how lack of accessibility limits access to information for people with disabilities
-
Strong rejection of considering audiovisual inclusion as merely a marketing strategy
-
High awareness of the difficulties faced by people with disabilities
-
Conviction that audiovisual accessibility is necessary because it enriches the experience for everyone
3. Behavioral Intention: Motivation Aplenty
The willingness to learn more, participate in events, consume accessible content, and modify daily behaviors was also very high from the start.
This profile paints a paradoxical situation: people who want to contribute to audiovisual accessibility but don’t know how. Awareness has taken root, but it hasn’t been accompanied by the knowledge transfer necessary to translate it into action.
After Viewing: Knowledge That Transforms
Subsequent responses showed substantial changes across all four dimensions.
1. Technical Knowledge: From 1-2 to 3-5
Items about practical capacity experienced the most pronounced increases. Participants who initially scored 1-2 on questions about how to create audio description or implement accessible subtitles moved to scores of 3-4 or even 5 after the film.
This change was not anecdotal: it was observed in practically all technical knowledge items. Suddenly, participants had concrete references about tools, regulations, production processes. The film had functioned as an accessible instruction manual.
2. The Most Important Conceptual Shift: When to Integrate Accessibility
One of the most significant findings was not quantitative but qualitative. Many participants who initially considered it sufficient to apply accessibility in the distribution phase (medium scores, 3-4) radically changed their perspective after viewing.
After the film, they understood that accessibility must be integrated from the creative conception of the project, not added at the end. This conceptual shift is precisely the core of the inclusive cinema model we champion at Mi Cine Inclusivo: accessibility not as a separate technical process, but as an integral dimension of audiovisual creation.
3. Consolidated Attitudes
Favorable attitudes, which already started from high values, were reinforced to practically maximum levels. Participants who showed some ambivalence on questions like «is audiovisual inclusion just marketing?» (medium scores) came to completely reject this idea, scoring 1. They had seen with their own eyes that accessibility is dignity, is culture, is human rights.
4. Intention Backed by Capacity
The willingness to act reached maximum values (5 points) in most participants. But the qualitative difference compared to the initial phase is crucial: now this intention is backed by concrete knowledge about how to materialize it.
Differences by Profile
Subgroup analysis revealed interesting nuances:
Participants familiar with disability: Although they showed slightly higher initial technical knowledge, they experienced equally significant changes in their understanding of integrating accessibility from creative phases. This suggests that even professionals with experience in the sector lack specific training in audiovisual accessibility.
Participants with disabilities: The small sample size (n=4) limits conclusions, but their responses showed higher initial technical knowledge and an especially positive assessment of how the film addressed real barriers.
By age: Younger participants (18-24 years) showed greater initial willingness to modify behaviors, while older participants demonstrated greater initial understanding of the impact on people with disabilities.
What These Data Mean
The results have direct implications for those of us working in audiovisual accessibility.
The training deficit is the main barrier. The coexistence of favorable attitudes and intention to act without corresponding technical knowledge clearly identifies where the problem lies. Awareness campaigns, though necessary, prove insufficient if not accompanied by practical training.
Cinema as a pedagogical tool. The magnitude of changes observed after 90 minutes of viewing suggests that the audiovisual format is particularly effective for transmitting this type of knowledge. Cinema’s capacity to combine conceptual information, practical examples, and emotional dimension may explain its superior effectiveness compared to purely theoretical formats.
Changing the paradigm is possible. The shift in understanding about when accessibility should be integrated (creation vs. distribution) demonstrates that it’s possible to transform entrenched conceptions through well-designed content. Overcoming the model of accessibility as a «technical add-on» and advancing toward truly inclusive cinema is not utopian.
Multiplier effect. The fact that 44.5% of participants work or study in sectors where they can apply what they’ve learned has long-term consequences. We’re training future professionals in culture, communication, and disability services who will systematically integrate accessibility into their professional practice.
Limitations: What This Study Can and Cannot Tell Us
Methodological transparency is fundamental. This study has limitations that must be considered when interpreting the results:
Self-selection bias. Participants volunteered, which likely implies greater prior interest than the general population. This explains the initially high awareness scores and limits generalization to people without prior interest.
No control group. We cannot causally attribute all changes exclusively to the film. Part of the effect could be due to the questionnaire itself (reflection induced by the questions) or simply the passage of time.
Specific sample. The concentration of young university women (77.8% women, average age 21.1 years) limits generalization. Results could differ in samples with greater demographic or educational diversity.
Social desirability. After watching a documentary about inclusion, some participants may have responded with what they considered «correct» rather than what they truly think.
Intention vs. behavior. We measure what participants say they will do, not what they actually do. The gap between intention and action is widely documented and represents a significant limitation.
No temporal follow-up. We don’t know if these changes persist at 3 or 6 months. Longitudinal follow-up would allow evaluation of learning stability and its translation into real behaviors.
That said, the observed patterns are consistent, the magnitude of changes is substantial, and the sample is representative of the target audience for this type of project. As a first approach, the results provide valuable evidence that justifies more robust subsequent research.
Conclusion: From Knowledge to Action
This evaluation confirms something fundamental: there exists a significant population that wants to contribute to audiovisual accessibility but lacks the tools to do so. Inclusivity – Beyond Cinema managed to close that gap, providing technical knowledge, transforming conceptions about how to integrate accessibility, and consolidating favorable attitudes with operational content.
The most relevant change is not quantitative but qualitative: leading participants to understand accessibility not as a technique to be added, but as an inherent dimension of cinematic creation. That shift in perspective is the first step toward building a truly inclusive audiovisual industry.
The results also point to a clear path forward: complementing awareness strategies with training content that provides applicable knowledge. Cinema, through its capacity to integrate information, practice, and emotion, constitutes an especially suitable vehicle for this purpose.
We will continue researching, measuring, improving. But these data confirm we’re on the right track: each screening of Inclusivity – Beyond Cinema is not just entertainment, it’s transformative training.
About the data: Complete results are available to researchers, audiovisual sector professionals, and interested educational institutions. For methodological inquiries, collaborations, or information about organizing training screenings, contact Mi Cine Inclusivo.
