I 'Inl-AAFHAI I

Michigan State i
University I

This is to certify that the l
dissertation entitled

THE ATTITUDES OF DIRECT CARE WORKERS TOWARDS
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

presented by
Abdoulaye Diallo

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Doctoral degree in Rehabilitation Counselor

 

Education

Major Professor’s Signature

A164,, {1 2‘: i O

 

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE ‘ DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 K:/Proleoc&PresIClRC/Dateom.indd

Auwwvm_~ 4

THE ATTITUDES OF DIRECT CARE WORKERS TOWARDS PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY

By

Abdoulaye Diallo

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial Fulfillment of the requirements
for the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Rehabilitation Counselor Education

2010

ABSTRACT
THE ATTITUDES OF DIRECT CARE WORKERS TOWARDS PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY
By

Abdoulaye Diallo

The purpose of this study is to examine the attitudes of direct care workers
(DCWs) in group homes towards PWDs. This study also investigated DCWs’
demographic and other variables on their attitudes towards PWDs. The scale of
attitudes towards disabled persons (SADP) questionnaire was administered to a
purposive sample of 108 direct care workers in four group homes companies in the
Lansing area. Of the 108 participants, 104 responded, but six participants were dropped
fiom the studies because they did not answer most of the questions, resulting in 98
usable questionnaires, a 90 percent response rate. Quantitative analysis, using
descriptive statistics to investigate DCWs’ attitudes and general linear model to
investigate the effects of DCWs’ demographic and other variables on their attitudes
towards PWDS. Regarding DCWs’ attitudes, both their general and specific attitudes,
that is DCW’s optimistic, behavioral misconception, and pessimism attitudes, were
investigated. For variables that bad effects on DCWs’ attitudes, comparison were made
regarding differences within the variables to see different categories’ or groups’ effects.

Results show that DCWs in the group homes had moderate positive attitudes
towards PWDs, in both their general and specific attitudes. Result regarding DCWs’
demographic and other variables’ effects on DCWs’ attitudes shows that some variable

had effects while others did not. Comparison within variables shows significant

differences between and among some of the groups, indicating that some variable had
more positive or negative attitudes than others, and non significant differences in
others. (1) The overall attitudes of DCWS towards PWDs were general positive. (2)
Training needs, knowledge about disability, and contact with PWDs and had an impact
on their overall attitudes towards PWDS. (3) DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDs in
relation to the SAPD subscales were positive for the SADP’s three subscales. (4) For
training needs, in all the scales, only the means of those Whose training needs were a
combination of directly working with clients (DWC), learning about disability (LAD),
and helping individual with disability (HIWD) were significantly different fiom the
means of all the other groups. (5) Contact had effect on the SAPD scale, and its
subscales, 2 and 3. All of the subtypes of “contact” positively affected the attitudes of
DCWS in the SAPD scale. (6) For “population DCWS worked with” in subscale 2,
those who worked with brain injuries (BI) and those who worked with a combination
of those with mental retardation (MR) and psychiatric disability (PD) had negative
attitudes. 7) For “knowledge about disability,” all the categories under knowledge had
positive effects towards PWDS.

There are implications for training and research. Increasing DCWs’ level of knowledge
about disability can help their attitudes towards PWDS. Research can focus on the training
needs of PWDs since training needs have the potentials of affecting DCWs’ attitudes. Also,
research can focus on the type of contact and how they affect DCWs’ attitudes. Furthermore,
researchers should replicate this study with different DCWS to see whether they can find
similar results as this study, and they can focus on which type of knowledge can positively

impact DCWs’ attitudes.

DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my late nephew, Salamana and my late first cousin,
Salamatou, both of whom had disabilities, my late mom and dad, Mr. and Mrs. Diallo,
who also had disabilities in their old age, my uncle, who is visually impaired, and to all

those who have or will have disabilities.

BOOK BLESSING
Good intentions, even the smallest ones, are steps to good and noble things. The hands
that help make them come to fi'uition are holy and pure hands that have the potentials of
making the impossible possible, including helping all to have positive attitudes towards

person with disabilities.

~ Abdoulaye Diallo

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation would not have been accomplished without the help and
guidance of my dissertation committee, Dr. Michael Leahy, Dr. Kosciulek, Dr. Nancy
Crewe, and Dr. Susan Peters. A special recognition goes to Dr. Leahy, my advisor and
dissertation committee chairperson, for his guidance and support throughout the
dissertation process. I also want to acknowledge Dr. Douglas Campbell for editing the
dissertation, and the group home organizations and their staffs who participated in the

dissertation study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................. ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................... x

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 01
Statement of the Problem ..................................................................... 02
Purpose ofthe Study 05
Research Questions ........................................................................ 06
Significance of Study ..................................................................... 06
Definition of Terms ........................................................................ 07

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 10

Discrimination towards People with Disability 10
Attitudes of Society... 14
Education, experience, and motrvatron in rehabilitation counselrng ............... 22
Measuring Scales .......................................................................... 26
CHAPTER III: METHOD ..................................................................... 29
Instruments .................................................................................. 30
Procedure .................................................................................... 34
Research Design. ._ .......................................................................... 37

Data Analysis ................................................................................... 38

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ........................................................................ 4O
DCW demographic variables ............................................................. 40
Analysis of DCWs’ Attitudes ............................................................ 46

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ..................................................................... 73
Attitudes towards PWDS ................................................................... 74
Variables and their effects ................................................................ 77
Limitations ................................................................................. 81
Implications .................................................................................. 83
Conclusion .................................................................................. 85

APPENDICES ...................................................................................... 87
APPENDIX A .............................................................................. 87
APPENDIX B ............................................................................... 89
APPENDIX C ............................................................................... 93
APPENDIX D ............................................................................... 94

_ APPENDIX E ............................................................................... 98

APPENDIX F ............................................................................... 99
APPENDIX G ............................................................................... 100
REFERENCES ................................................................................... l 01

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Demographic and other Characteristics of the Sample ............................... 43
Table 2. Individual Scores of DCWS towards PWDS ......................................... 48
Table 3. Means for Training Needs Categorie ................................................... 55

Table 4. Means for Contact with PWDS Categorie ............................................. 5 7

Table 5. Means for Training Needs Categories in Subscale ................................... 63
Table 6. Means for Population Categories in Subscale ......................................... 65

Table 7. Means for Contact Categories in Subscale ............................................ 67

Table 8. Means for Training Needs Categories in Subscale ................................... 69

Table 9. Means for Contact Categories in Subscale ............................................ 7O

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Histogram of DCWS’ Attitude towards PWDS Score .............................. 56

ix

PWD

DCW

SAPD

DWC

LAD

HIWD

NN

BI

DD

MR

PD

0

VLCPWD

LC Little

SC

FC

VFC

EC

NVK

7“

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Persons with Disabilities
Direct Care Workers
The American with Disability Act of
Scale of Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities
Directly Working with Clients
Learning About Disability
Helping Individuals with Disabilities
No Needs
Brain Injury
Developmental Disability
Mental Retardation
Psychiatric Disability
Other
Very Little Contact with persons with disabilities
Contact with persons with disabilities
Some Contact with persons with disabilities
Frequent Contact with persons with disabilities
Very Frequent Contact with persons with disabilities
Extensive with persons with disabilities
Not Very Knowledgeable
Knowledgeable

Very Knowledgeable

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Society can provide and ensure that persons with disabilities (PWDS) receive
the best quality of service. For example, legislators can pass laws that include the
interest of PWDS, and health care workers can dispense services to PWDS. Likewise,
rehabilitation counselors and other rehabilitation professionals can focus on the
strengths of PWDS and empower them to reach their maximum potentials. Direct care
workers (DCWS) can provide a supportive and safe environment in which PWDS can
learn and grow. In positively serving and affecting the lives of PWDS, the attitudes of
society in general, and of DCWS specifically, towards PWDS are invaluable. According
to Smart (2001), negative attitudes of people make it more difficult (than the disability
itself) to live a fulfilling life. A negative attitude can result in less opportunity for
PWDS, whereas a positive attitude can lead to opportunities that can benefit PWDS
(Smart). Ultimately, the quality of lives, which according to Livneh (2001) is the
ultimate goal of rehabilitation, can be affected by attitudes towards PWDS. It is
therefore worth investigating the attitudes of DCWS, who work daily with PWDS and
provide valuable services, such as training in hygiene, cooking, and other related tasks,
so that PWDS can live more independently.

While research in attitudinal studies of PWDS in the rehabilitation literature has
focused on rehabilitation professionals (Benham, 1988; Emener, 1977; Kaplan &
Thomas, 1981; Parkinson, 2006; Spengler, Strohmer, & Prout, 1990), (Byrd, Byrd &
Emener, 1977; Huitt and Elston, 1991) and employers ((Bowman, 1987; Brostrand,

2006; Farina & Felner, 1973; Gordon, Minnes, and Holden, 1990); Olkin, 1999;

Satcher, & Dooley-Dickey, 1992), studies have overlooked the attitudes of DCWS in
general towards PWDS as well as the attitudes of specific groups of DCWS (e. g.
DCWS with experience and those without much experience, DCWS with more
education and those with less education, females and males DCWS). Yet, DCWS are
the ones who work directly and daily with PWDS, doing important tasks in the
implementation of treatment plans developed by counselors, managers, and other
professionals. DCWS in general and specific groups of DCWS are in a significant
position to greatly impact the lives of PWDS, including their quality of life.
Statement of problem

This study is an exploratory investigation of the attitudes of direct care workers
(in group homes) towards PWDS. Attitudes, both negative and positive, towards PWDS
go back to ancient times and have manifested themselves in several ways. The sources
of these attitudes include faulty information, economic and safety threats, emphases on
fitness, beauty and youth, spread or overgeneralization, the need to secure resources for
and to protect society, and the need to treat others humanely (Smart, 2001). We see the
effect of false beliefs and the need to protect society, for example, in the Greek and
Roman era. The false belief that a fault in the soul also means a fault in the body
(Dickinson, 1961) can predispose people to a negative attitude towards PWDS (Lee &
Rodda, 1994), and likewise the need to defend and to provide for society can lead to
support for the healthy young while neglecting those with disabilities (Wright, 1980).
However, during this ancient time, there were also positive attitudes towards PWDS,

for accurate information that disability is not the result of Gods punishment (Wright),

but rather a brain pathology and environmental conditions, led to positive treatments,
such as the creations of recreation centers for PWDS (Rubin & Roesler, 2001).

In early America, where focus was on survival, PWDS received poor treatment,
while in 19 century America, humanitarian religious beliefs encouraged the successful
to help the unfortunate and PWDS received more positive treatment. For example,
society provided the resources to create rehabilitation programs for PWDS. However,
the post-civil war period, there were the Eugenics and Darwinism movements which
did not favor positive attitudes towards PWDS because PWDS did not meet their
standards (Riggar & Maki, 2004). The former wanted to improve the inborn quality of
people (Glad, 2007) and the latter was interested in keeping only the “strong” who are
not burdensome to society (Leonard, 2009). There was also the segregationist attitude,
with special programs that separated the “deviant” from the normal.” At these times in
history, PWDS were seen as dangerous and the need to protect society led to negative
attitudes, which in turn led to incarceration of some PWDS (Rubin & Roesler).

In our current society, the treatment of PWDS is far better compared to the past.
However, unfair treatment continues (Smart, 2001). Currently, PWDS are often denied
their right to exercise choice and control over basic aspects of their lives (Kosciulek,
2000), including living arrangements, work, and recreation (Kosciulek, 1999a). A large
number of PWDS can be at risk of experiencing social stigma (Phemister & Crewe,
2004), through which they were therefore also avoided (Siller, 1963). In employment
they face discrimination (Olkin, 1999). The spread or overgeneralization effect can

influence employers. Here, they can discount or underrate the abilities of a PWD

because the person has an impairment, assuming that a physical or other impairments
also means lack Of intellectual or other abilities (Smart).

These cases of negative attitudes towards PWDS in the past and present show
the baneful consequences PWDS face. These consequences can lead to behaviors
(Chubon, 1992; Corrigan, 2006) such as bias and discrimination, which in turn can
result in fewer opportunities in employment (Brostrand, 2006; Smart, 2004; Szyrnanski
and Parker, 1996), in health care (Conover, Arno, Weaver, Ang, & Ettner, 2006;
Stapleton, Livermore, and O’Day, Imparato, 2005), in education (Batavia and
Beaulaurier, 2001; Komesaroff, 2004), and in other areas for PWDS.

For the firnctioning of negative bias, Yuker (1988) mentioned three conditions —
saliency, value, and context. He made the point that if something stands out
significantly or is salient, if it is seen or valued as negative, or if it the context is vague,
the negative value placed on the thing will play a great role in guiding people’s
perception, thinking, and feeling to fit the thing’s negative characteristics.

While efforts have been made to end these biases, discrimination and other
unfair and inhumane treatments of PWDS, negative attitudes towards PWDS continues
because, according to Smart (2004), it is difficult to legislate attitudes. For example,
employers’ and others’ behaviors are often influenced by attitudes and beliefs instead
of by the law (Smart). There is the potential of DCWS having negative attitudes
towards PWDS because researchers (Comer and Piliavian, 1975; Oberle, 1971; Olkin,
1999) have shown that society at large, and even professionals, have negative attitudes

towards PWDS.

However, as I already mentioned, we do not know much about the attitudes of
DCWS towards PWDS. If direct care workers have negative attitudes towards PWDS,
PWDS can face many of the same negative attitudes of society and resulting
consequences mentioned above. To address this lack of knowledge in DCWs’ attitudes
towards PWDS, we need to focus research in this area.

Purpose of the Study

DCWS can enter the field of rehabilitation counseling with less preparation
compared to rehabilitation counselors and other rehabilitation personnel, which can
negatively affect their attitudes towards PWDS and ultimately the lives of PWDS.
Accordingly, a negative attitude of a direct care worker (e. g., believing that PWDS
cannot learn) in a shopping training for a PWD can lead to the DCWS doing the
shopping instead of following a treatment plan and teaching and allowing the PWD to
do his/her own shopping. Such attitudes can lead to dependence of PWDS all their
lives. And because DCWS work with PWDS daily in many areas of their lives, we can
see similar examples where PWDS are not benefiting fi'om services if DCWS have
negative attitudes towards them (PWDS). This shows a need for understanding the
attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in order to give them the help they need in best
servicing PWDS

DCWS may have different levels of education and experience in working with
PWDS and different motivations for choosing direct care work, and these and other
factors, such as gender and race may influence their attitudes towards PWDS.

Studying the attitude of DCWS towards PWDS, including the relationship of

DCWs’ attitudes with the DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work, the

DCWS’ level of experience, the DCWS level of education, and the gender and race of
DCWS are important ways to inform us and fill the gap in the literature on DCWS’
attitudes towards PWDS. The population of DCWS is important because they work with
PWDS more than six hours daily in most cases, implementing goals that are basic, but
crucial to the lives of PWDS. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to investigate the
attitudes of DCWs’ towards PWDS in general, and the relation between DCWS
attitudes towards PWDS and motivation for choosing a career (direct care work, for
example), number of years worked, level of education, and the gender and race of
DCWS. This study will be limited to DCWS in group settings.
Research Questions
1) What are the attitudes of DCWS’ towards PWDS?
2) Will DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work (in group homes) impact their
attitudes towards PWDS?
3) Will DCWs’ (in group homes) amounts of experience in working with PWDS impact
their attitudes towards PWDS?
4) Will DCWs’ (in group homes) level of education impact their attitudes towards
PWDS?
5) Will other demographic variables (age, gender, and raCe) of DCWS affect their
attitudes towards PWDS?
Significance of the study

The results of this study have the potential of extending existing knowledge in
terms of the attitudes of direct care workers towards PWDS in the rehabilitation

literature. More specifically, the rehabilitation counseling field can be informed about

DCWs’ educational level, motivation for choosing direct care work, experience
working with PWDS, the gender and race of DCWS, and the relationships of these
factors with DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS. Administrators and managers can use
this knowledge in employing the best employees.

There are also implications for the practice of rehabilitation professionals if
DCWS and the specific groups have negative attitudes towards PWDS. Understanding
the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS can better help rehabilitation professionals to
train DCWS and to help them provide the best service with positive attitudes towards
PWDS. Employers (Gordon, Minnes, and Holden, 1990; Szyrnanski and Parker, 1996),
rehabilitation counselors (Kaplan and Thomas, 1981; Parkinson, 2006), and students
(Wong, Chan, Cardoso, Lam & Miller, 2004) have been found to have negative
attitudes towards PWDS, and as a result these populations have been target for attitude
change through attitude changing strategies (education and cognitive, for example).
Likewise, Rehabilitation professionals can help DCWS with negative attitudes to
benefit from attitudinal training, which ultimately will benefit PWDS.
Defining Terms

Attitudes: Attitude is defined as an idea that is filled with emotion and that
predisposes a person to act in a certain way towards a person or a situation or an event
(Triandis, 1971), and it consists of cognition, affect, and behavior (Clarke & Crewe,
2000). Attitudes of people towards PWDS can be affected by their motives for working
with PWDS, their level of education (Rice, Rosen, & Macmann, 1991), and their years

of experience working with PWDS (Benham, 1988).

Direct Care workers: Direct care workers in this study refer to employees who
work directly with clients, providing a variety of services, including training clients in
basic living skills, dispensing medication to clients, accompanying them to doctors and
to other appointments, and many other important tasks. In general they work in
hospitals, nursing homes, sheltered workshops, and group homes for individuals with
developmental and other significant disabilities. In this study DCWS will be limited to
DCWs who work in groups homes. Group homes for individuals with disabilities are
homes where at least four clients with disabilities reside.

Disability: Disability is a long term or chronic medical condition
(physiological, anatomical, mental, or emotional); that is, an impairment resulting from
traumas, illnesses, disease, inherited or congenital defeats, or environments, which can
cause a handicap. In other words, a disadvantage or barrier to performance or
opportunity, or fulfillment in vocational, educational, or other roles, and/or functional
limitation, which is an hindrance in performing tasks (6. g. difficulties in a college
lecture as a result of learning difficulties) (Wright, 1980).

Quality of Life: Researchers have operationalized and defined quality of life in
different ways. In the rehabilitation field, it includes social, psychological, physical
well being, and health perceptions and opportunities (Chandrashekas & Benshoff,
2007). In their definition of successful outcome, vocational rehabilitation and
independent living rehabilitation programs include quality of life; quality of life should
include life satisfaction in relation to standards the consumer deems desirable or

undesirable for him or her (Riggar & Maki, 2004).

In sum, this is an exploratory study in the field of rehabilitation that looks at the
attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS. DCWS are in a position to affect the lives of PWDS,
and ultimately their QOLs. However, little is known about their attitudes towards
PWDS and research has shown that there are negative attitudes of society at large
towards PWDS. The findings of this study can shed light on the attitudes of DCWS,
which will in turn help administrators, rehabilitation professionals and others better

help DCWS give the best service possible through positive attitudes towards PWDS.

CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of the proposed study is to investigate the attitudes of direct care
workers towards PWDS. This chapter provides a review of important topics in studying
DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS. The main topics included in this literature review
include: (1) discrimination against PWDS, (2) attitudes towards PWDS, (3) education,
experience, and motivation/rehabilitation field, and (4) scales measuring attitudes
towards PWDS. This literature review encompasses work from many rehabilitation
scholars as well as scholars in other field of studies.
Discrimination towards PWDS
Discrimination against PWDS is the fi'uit of negative attitudes. The American
with Disability Act of 1990 (ADA) was passed after congress heard testimonies, many
of which were emotional, about the unfairness of how PWDS were treated in
employment and other areas (Rubin & Roesler, 2004). Whether the ADA has been
successful in ending discrimination is debatable. On the one hand, many of its critics
questioned whether the ADA has succeeded in helping a large number of PWDS
participate in employment (Blanck, 1996). For example, according to Schur, Kruse &
Blanck (2005), researchers disagree about the effectiveness of the ADA in helping
PWDS gain employment. They further state that for those with severe work limitations,
only about 25.4 % had employment in 1999. According to Bush (2001) and Kennedy
& Olney (2001 ), the employment rates of individuals with severe disabilities remained
static from 1991, when the ADA was passed, to 2001. According to Rubin and

Roessler, twenty years afier the ADA was passed to remove employment

10

discrimination and other barriers for PWDS, only about a quarter of working-age
PWDS had full time employment. Schwochau and Blanck (2003) state that the ADA
has failed in helping PWDS gain employment. According to Corrigan, Kerr, and
Knudsen (2005), the success of legislation (including ADA) in protecting PWDS does
not mean that employers will not discriminate against PWDS, since employers can find
informal ways to deny employment to PWDS. Greenwood & Johnson (1987) also made
points in this vein. They indicated that a compilation and synthesis of more than 90
studies spanning 40 years of research into employers’ attitudes toward and concerns
about workers with disabilities show that stereotypical attitudes towards PWDS persist.

Others, however, see the ADA as a success in helping PWDS. For example,
according to Schur, Kruse & Blanck (2005), companies have hired more PWDS since
the ADA. In addition, they state that progress has been made in public transportation
accessibility, installations of curbs to streets and ramps to public buildings, and
accessibility in new buildings. According to Blank (1996), the ADA has been
successful in improving the participation of qualified individuals with disabilities in the
labor force as well as in decreasing their dependency on the government.

Regardless of the success of the ADA, discrimination towards PWDS continues
in our society. However, it is worth noting the points made by McMahon, Roessler,
Rumrill, Hurley, West, Chan, Carlson (2008), who stated that while there is
discrimination in gaining employment, most complains of ADA employment
discrimination are in the areas of job retention and career advancement. They also

indicated that studies in general have shown that negative attitudes are more towards

ll

persons with behavioral disabilities; however, their research showed that
discrimination in hiring is mostly towards those with physical or sensory impairments.

Employers have the same negative attitudes towards PWDS as does society at
large (Szyrnanski and Parker, 1996). According to Brostrand (2006), employers may
not be inclined to provide equitable employment for PWDS, and if employers have
these negative attitudes, the corollaries can be discrimination, and employers’
behaviors may be influenced by attitudes and beliefs instead of by laws (like the ADA).
As a result there is thepotential of PWDS losing the benefits of working, which
according to Gonzalez (2009) is a socially recognized activity that provides emotional
welfare and increases self esteem. Shur, Kruse, Blasi, and Blanck (2009), in their
survey study of employers from fourteen companies, found that disability is linked to
lower average wage, job security, training, participation in decisions, and negative
attitudes towards job and company, which according to Uppal (2005) is likely due to
discrimination, harassment, and other conditions in the work place. However, Schur,
Kruse, Blasi, and Blanck also found that the above mentioned relationships varied from
employer to employer and that PWDS benefited from employers who are responsive to
the need of all employees.

Discrimination against PWDS in other areas, such as health care and education
and training, to name but a few, are common place as well. According to Stapleton,
Livermore, O’Day, and Imparato (2005), PWDS are discriminated against in health
care and in getting resources from health care providers and other personnel. For
example, they stated that only about 37% of those with severe disabilities receive

means-tested government assistance. And, for those who receive these aids, they state

12

that it is not enough to get them out of poverty and that they cannot work and add to
their income (because of restrictions). In addition to receiving inadequate resources,
PWDS receive poor health care (Conover, Arno, Weaver, Ang, & Ettner, 2006).

' In education and training, educators and others discriminate against PWDS.
Education is very important, yet PWD witness discrimination in this area - 20% of
PWDS do not have a high school degree (compared with 10% of our population
without disabilities) (Batavia and Beaulaurier, 2001). According to Komesaroff (2004),
it is the most important issues for those who are deaf, yet the most difficult on which to
advocate and bring about change. Iacobelli (1970) surveyed employers regarding their
attitudes towards regular and disadvantage workers and how their attitudes affect their
willingness to train both types of worker without financial and Other assistance from
the government. They found that employers believe that the government should
provide at least half of the training cost, be responsible for collecting and distributing
the information and for coordinating nationwide training activities, and make the
policies for local use. While companies believe that specific skills should be their
responsibility, they indicated that remedial training should the govemment’s and
education system’s duty. Such attitudes can lead to less education or training for
PWDS, which, according to Batavia and Beaulaurier, can cause poverty.

DCWS are definitely not immune to these types of discrimination by
professionals and others. As I have already stated, one of the main reasons for
discrimination against PWDS is negative attitudes of society (Smart, 2004).

In order to meet PWDs’ needs in the work place, Uppal (1996) indicated that

we need a comprehensive approach that focuses not just on policies, but also on

13

attitudes, including investigating the attitudes, values, and beliefs of both management
and staff, including DCWS as a whole. The next section II will discuss the attitudes of
society towards PWDS.
Attitudes of society towards P WDs

Negative attitudes as opposed to positive attitudes (which include friendliness
and interaction) entail avoidance and rejection (Antonak & Livneh, 1988). Ambivalent
attitudes, on the other hand, are dual, in the sense that there is feeling of aversion, on
the one hand, and compassion on the other (Katz, Hass, & Bailey, 1988). This section
is divided into these subsections: 1) dimension and formation of attitudes, 2) attitudes
of particular groups towards PWDS, 3) instruments used to measure attitudes towards
PWDS.

Dimension/Structure/formation. According to Antonak and Livneh (1988),
two dimensions are usually considered, namely abstractness and extensiveness, when
defining attitudes. In the former, according to Antonak & Livneh, attitude is not
directly observed, but rather inferred, and they are seen as residing within us. Here,
they further state that attitude can be evoked by specific reference objects (individuals,
for example), which can elicit an attitude response from the subjects. Extensiveness,
the second component, can be structurally categorized into a cognitive (individual
ideas, thoughts, perception, etc. about the attitude reference), an affective (feeling or
emotional aspects of attitudes), and a behavioral component (intent or readiness to
behave in a particular way towards the attitude object) (Antonak & Livneh).

Moreover, Antonak & Livneh (1988) state that there are those who define

attitude narrowly, not including the cognitive and behavioral aspects. Additionally,

l4

they made the point that despite the lack of consensus in defining attitude, there are
some agreements, and these include: a) attitudes are learned, b) they are complex,
multi-component, structure 0) they are relatively stable, e) they have special social
Objects as a referent, f) they vary (in quality and quantity), and g) they are manifested
behaviorally. What are the sources of these negative attitudes?

Attitudes formation. The sources of these negative attitudes include fear (Siller,
1963), faulty information, economic threat, threat to safety, threat to the cultural
emphasis on fitness, beauty and youth, and spread or overgeneralization of the effect of
the disability (Rubin & Roessler, 2001). Based on Fishbein and Ajzen’s framework of
attitude formation, negative attitudes are the results of faulty information about
disability and PWDS (Hunt & Hunt, 2004). In spread or overgeneralization, for
example, an employer can discount or underrate the mathematical or supervisory
ability of PWDS by assuming that the person with a visual (or another impairment) also
has mathematical, supervisory or other impairments (Smart, 2001). In other words, the
employer might generalize a visual impairment to other areas of the individual. Siller
(1984) mentioned the relationship between personality and attitudes towards PWDS,
indicating that personality characteristics, such as anxiety, hostility and rigidity, are
related to negative attitudes towards PWDS. These sources of attitudes have led society
to have negative attitudes towards PWDS (Smart).

People in general can form attitudes (positive or negative) towards PWDS. With
the general population, English and Oberle (1971) found that almost one-half have
positive attitudes toward individuals with disabilities, while Comer and Piliavian

(1975), on the other hand, state that more than one-half have negative attitudes toward

15

those with disabilities. Particular groups, such as employers, rehabilitation counselors,
health care workers, DCWS and others are not immune to having negative attitudes
towards PWDS.
Attitudes of particular groups

Employers. Employers have the same negative attitudes towards PWDS as
society at large. Expectation plays a crucial role in attitudes towards PWDS (Szyrnanski
& Parker, 1996). According to Gordon, Minnes, and Holden (1990), negatively valued
expectations are shaped by negative attitudes towards the disability, and employers act
upon these negatively valued expectations. Along this vein, Schloss and Soda (1989)
made the point of how labeling individuals as “mentally retarded” lowered employers’
expectations for the individual’s success in a job, while the employers’ expectation was
raised for more involved training. Farina & Felner (1973) found that employers’
expectations were full of interview bias towards those with psychiatric disabilities and
were resistant to employ those who had been injured at work. Some stereotypes of
workers towards PWDS are expectation of weakness and lack of work-related
competency (Bowman, 1987). Since strength and competencies are considered highly
valued factors in employment, employers with such attitudes and the expectations that
follow from them can engage in discrimination in selecting PWDS for employment
(Satcher, & Dooley-Dickey, 1992), and, possibly, in other employment issues.
According to Brostrand (2006), employers may not be inclined to provide equitable
employment for PWDS, and if employers have these negative attitudes, the corollaries

can be discrimination. (Brostrand). Olkin (1999) states the attitudes of employers

16

towards recruiting, hiring, retraining, and promoting individuals with disabilities are
crucial to the overall well-being of individuals with disabilities.

Rehabilitation Counselor. The disagreement as to whether therapist/student
counselors have negative attitudes toward those with disabilities is evident in the
literature. Some have found that counselors have negative attitudes towards PWDs
(Benham, 1988; Emener, 1977; Kaplan & Thomas, 1981; Parkinson, 2006; Spengler,
Strohmer, & Prout, 1990), while others have found the opposite; that is, counselors
have positive attitudes towards PWDS (Byrd, Byrd & Emener, 1977; Huitt & Elston,
1991)

According to some studies, negative attitudes towards PWDS have to do with the
disability type or the characteristics of a disability subculture. Schofield and Kunce
(1971) studied specific attitudes of six counselors (working in a Jewish vocational
service) towards specific disabilities in different contexts. These contexts were
evaluation of workshop performance, evaluation of clients’ employability, counselor-
client interaction based on rate of drop out, and counselor-client interaction based on
recommendation for work adjustment programs. In the first situation, they found that
the counselor differed significantly with regards to the three types of disability group
used — physical, mental, and emotional disabilities. In the second case, evaluation of
employability, they found that counselors differed in regards to the emotional disability
group, but did not in how they viewed the employability of the two other disability
groups. With all the PWDS combined, they found that counselors differed significantly
regarding employability. With respect to drop out rate, the third case, there were no

significant differences among the counselors. For recommendation for work

17

adjustments, counselors differed significantly. They believe those with physical and
mental disabilities do not need such program, as opposed to those with emotional
disability.

Eberly, Eberly and Wright (1981) found that rehabilitation students were biased
towards those with physical disabilities, preferring to work with those with non-
physical disabilities even though their description (resourceful, sincere, warm, etc.) of
those with physical disabilities were more positive than those with non-physical
disabilities. While Wong, Chan, Cardoso, Lam and Miller (2004) found that therapy
students had negative attitudes towards those with mild disabilities, they found that
these students were not biased towards those with severe disabilities.

Along this vein, Olkin (1999) stated that attitudes towards PWDS vary from
disability to disability and they are influenced by severity, visibility, tractability, degree
of transmissibility, and effect on life expectancy. Asthma and diabetes, for example,
are low on these dimensions, and as a result fewer negative attitudes result towards
those with such disabilities. Some of the disabilities that are highly ranked, for
example, are deafness, blindness, and amputation of one leg (Olkin). At the lowest rank
are those with paraplegia and quadriplegia, and cerebral palsy (Olkin). According to
Smart (2001), the least stigmatized disability is physical disability, and then cognitive
and intellectual disabilities; and the most stigmatized is mental disability.

M. Royal and Roberts (1987) studies the attitudes of students based on
age and gender. They were asked to rate disabilities in terms of their visibility, severity,
acceptability, and familiarity. They found that generally sixth to twelve grade students

had more positive attitudes than third graders, and that females had more positive

18

attitudes than males. Also, they found that third grade students rated visibility the
highest and familiarity and acceptability the lowest, and males gave significantly
higher rating than did females on severity.

Likewise, Hergenrather and Rhodes (2007) investigated the attitudes of
undergraduate students towards PWDs in three different contexts — dating, marriage,
and work. The mean score for work was the highest, followed by the mean score for
marriage. Gordon (1990) had similar results. In this study the attitudes of women
across the three contexts were significantly higher than those of men. It is worth
addressing social context in attitudinal studies, because further influence may be
identified and thus may be helpful in formulating strategies to change attitudes
(Gordon, Tantillo, Feldman, Perrone, 2004).

Byrd, Byrd, and Emener (1977) compared the attitudes of students with those
of counselors and employers in regards to employability towards those with severe
disabilities. According to Byrd, Byrd, and Emener, the perception of severity is an
important variable of employment for those with a severe disability. They found that
while employers ranked alcoholism as the most severe of the disabilities, students and
counselors ranked it twelfth and fourth respectively. For blindness, employers ranked it
second, counselors ranked it first, and students ranked it fifth. Employers’ and
counselors’ perceptions of employing those with severe disability are closer than
students perceptions and they pointed out that this might be due to the counselors’ and
employers’ regular contact with those with severe disability.

The attitudes of students towards PWDS have also been compared based on

race. Chan, Tsang, and Corrigan (2006) compared the attitudes of American students

19

towards PWDS to those of Chinese students, and found that American students are
more positive than Chinese students. Also, Ribas (2007) examine the attitudes of
Portuguese students towards those with behavioral disabilities; her results showed that
the students had positive attitudes compared to the results of previous studies that had
investigated the attitudes of Asian and North American students. Attitudes towards
those with intellectual disabilities by Korean descent in the United State were
examined by Fong (2007). The result showed that the participants’ attitudes were
negative.

Other health care professional. Benharn (1988) focus of specific attitudes was
on infants with Downs Syndrome. He used occupational therapists of different
professional level, areas of practice, years of practice, and geographical region. The
result for attitudes towards PWDS in general showed that those with sixteen or more
years of practice had significantly more positive attitudes than those with six to ten
years of experience. For Downs syndrome, they found that the therapist had positive
attitudes; however, among the variables for professional level, area of practice, or
geographic location there were no significant differences. Nevertheless, with both
students and practicing personnel, there was a significant difference in the year-Of-
practice variable. Those with less than five year experience and eleven and above had
positive attitudes; however, there found a decline in the favorable attitude between ages
six and ten. Benharn found that occupation therapists differed in regards to their
attitudes towards PWDS in comparism to other health care professionals and he pointed
out that the reason might be due to the occupational therapist’s profession emphasis on

the intrinsic worth of people.

20

Strohmer, Grand, Purcell (1984) used a heterogeneous group of university
personnel (faculty, professional, and nonprofessional) to strengthen the view that
attitudes vary based on interaction between disability type and social context. They
found that increased contact with PWDS, younger in age, and with higher levels of
education were better predictors of more positive attitudes towards PWDS in general.
Regarding marrying PWDS, increased contact and younger age were the best predictors
of more positive attitudes. In the dating situation, increased contact and higher
educational level were also the best predictors for favorable attitudes. In these
situations, religion, gender, and socioeconomic status were not significant in this dating
situation either. Strohmer, Grand, and Purcell indicated that attitudes towards PWDS
should not be seen in a simplistic, one-dimensional way and that research should take
into account both the disability type and the social context.

As we have seen above, it is worth noting that the attitudes of society in general
and of particular groups can take different directions when certain social contexts,
disabilities, and gender and race are considered (Strohmer, Grand, Purcell, 1984).
Others (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Akhidenor, 2007; Fong, 2007; Ribas, 2007; Siller,
1976; & Yuker, 1983) have also indicated the importance of social context and of
gender and race in attitudinal study.

There is scant research on the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS. Researchers
studying attitudes towards PWDS have focused more attention on attitudes of
professionals and students (and on comparative studies, comparing different cultures).
The literature on DCWs’ attitudes has focused on attitudes toward work and on job

satisfaction; there is a dearth of knowledge on attitudes towards clients. The little

21

literature there is about DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS usually focuses on just a small
part of DCWS attitudes. For example, Rice, Rosen, and Macmann (1991) focused on
expectation of DCWS regarding the learning capacity of PWDS in a residential facility.
However, attitude towards PWDS is more than just one issue or one aspect of human.
Attitude also encompasses cognition, affect, and behavior (FIndler, Vilchinsky, and
Werner, 2007), and factors such as Optimism-human right, behavioral misconceptions,
and pessimism-hopelessness should be considered in attitudinal studies (Antonak,
1982). The focus has also been on attitudes towards work (work satisfaction) or
attitudes towards diversity (ethnic clients). For example, Terry ((1990) focused on
nurse aides’ attitudes towards ethnic patients in nursing homes, and not on the general
attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in the nursing homes.

In addition to the lack of research on the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS,
very little is known about factors such as motivation for choosing direct care work,
experience working as a DCW, DCWs’ level of education, and DCWs’ gender and race
and how these factors can influence the attitudes of DCWS. The following section will
briefly focus on these factors in the rehabilitation counseling in general.

Education, experience, and motivation in rehabilitation counseling
Education and Experience
In the rehabilitation field, rehabilitation counselors and other professionals, like
the vocational specialist, are required to possess a certain level of education and
experience through practicum and internship. The VR Act of 1954 provided grants for
colleges and universities to train rehabilitation professionals, and this initiative led to

masters’ degree programs (Rubin & Roesler, 2001) for rehabilitation counselors.

22

Rehabilitation counselors should take a certain number of graduate classes and have a
minimum of 100 hours of supervised rehabilitation counseling practicum (40 hours of
direct work with PWDS) and 600 hours of internship (CORE, 2006). For certified
rehabilitation counselors, Leahy, Chan, and Saunders (2003) have identified the
knowledge requirement. However, the qualification for direct care work is a high
school diploma, with no experiential obligation to fulfill. Nevertheless, there are many
with BA and even MA degrees who work as direct care workers.

There are certification and licensure requirements in some instances, for
rehabilitation counselors to be certified rehabilitation counselors and limited
professional counselors. DCWS, on the other hand, do not need certification to work in
group homes. In many cases, direct care workers get their training during orientations
and through on the job training by informal means fi'om managers or coordinators.

The above requirements for rehabilitation counselors are meant to prepare them
to provide excellent services to PWDS. A question that begs an answer is whether
DCWS also need training in order to provide excellent Services for PWDS. Lack of
training can be detrimental to PWDS. There are no studies to determine the type of
educational or experiential training needed for this paraprofessional population in order
to better serve PWDS.

There is potential for the DCWs’ level of education and experience to impact
their attitudes towards PWDS. Rice, Rosen, & Macmann (1991), in studying the
attitudes of DCWs’ attitudes in regards to their expectation that clients will Show
improvement in what they teach clients, found that level of education was related to

DCWs’ expectations about clients’ ability to learn. Also, Angharad (2009), using

23

children and young adults, showed that education does play a role in changing negative
attitudes towards PWDS.
Benharn (1988) studied the relation between experience as rehabilitation counselors
and attitudes towards PWDS. She found that beginning (less than 5 years experience)
and very seasoned counselors (16 years or more of experience) had positive attitudes
towards those with disabilities, whereas semi-seasoned counselors (between 10 to 16
years of experience) had negative attitudes. Such potential influence of level of
education and of experience in working as a direct care worker can shed light in
understanding the attitudes of DCWS.
Motivation I

Why do we choose certain careers? According to Theodore Caplow’s theory,
career results from random events, accidents (of heritance such as race), errors of being
in the right or wrong place, etc. Others, however, do not subscribe to Caplow’s random
movement of career choice. For example, Donald Super’s theory is based on the notion
of a person’s self concept or interests and abilities, and John Holland’s theory sees a
person’s personality as the key factor in choosing a career (Kottler & Brown, 1992).
Robert Hoppock and Anne Roe, who depart from the views of the Donald and Super,
focus on satisfying personal needs. They emphasize need satisfaction as playing the
key role in career choice. Others like John Krumboltz have taken both genetics (ability)
and the environment (economic climate) (that can be outside a person control) into
consideration in determining why people choose certain careers (Kottler & Brown).

In the rehabilitation counseling field, there are studies that have investigated the

motivation for choosing rehabilitation counseling as a profession. Szyrnanski and

24

Parker (1995), Bishop (2001) and Garske (1999) found that rehabilitation counselors
were motivated to work as counselors in the state/Federal VR system because they
wanted to help others and because of the creative and autonomous aspect of the job.
Szymanski and Parker (1995) found that the challenges and the nature of their jobs
influence counselors in choosing their field of work. Garske (1999) also found the
challenge of the job as a factor; in addition, he found that the diversity of the job
played a part in counselors’ choices. On the other hand, Bishop (2001) found that the
need to learn and grow motivated the counselors. Motivation of choosing a career is
likely to affect work, and perhaps attitudes towards PWDS. But there are no studies
that have investigated the motivation for choosing direct care work or the relation
between motivation for choosing direct care work and attitudes towards PWDS.

There is the potential of motivation for choosing direct care work to affect the
attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS, including the quality of service they provide for
' PWDS. Bishop (2001), in investigating the motivation for choosing rehabilitation
counseling as a profession, pointed to the importance of understanding motivation: that
it is important to the extent that it relates to the quality of life of PWDS. Similarly,
understanding the motivation for choosing direct care work can be invaluable to the
extent that it is connected to attitudes towards Pst and the quality of service to them.
Motivation is related to job satisfaction (Bishop), and job satisfaction is likely to affect
job quality of service to PWDS, and perhaps even attitudes towards PWDS.
Gender and Race

Based on the research mentioned above gender and the race of people also play .

a role in people’s attitudes towards PWDS. However, as I have already stated little is

25

know about the attitudes of DCWS based on gender and race. There is the potential of
DCWs’ gender as well as their race affecting their attitudes towards PWDS.
Measuring Scales

Attitude scale are mostly direct measurement, that is, participants are informed
that their attitudes are being measured or they are aware of it (because of the attitude
measuring techniques) (Livneh & Antonak, 1994). Some of the instruments measure
attitudes towards PWDS in general, while others focus on attitudes towards specific
disabilities. For example, attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale measures attitudes
towards individuals with physical disabilities as a group (Y uker et al., 1966); the
Disability Factor Scale measures attitudes towards individuals with various physical
disabilities and chronic illnesses (Siller et al., 1967); the Disability Social Distance
Scale focuses on measuring attitudes towards individuals with specific disabilities
(Tringo, 1970); the Acceptance Scale focuses on measuring attitudes towards peers
with physical disabilities integrated into regular classes (V oeltz, 1980); the Scale of
Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons is centered on measuring attitudes towards PWDS
as a group (Antonak, 1982); the Disability Social Relationship Scale measures attitudes
towards individuals with epilepsy, blindness, CP, and arm amputation (Grand, Bemier,
Strohmer, 1982); the Issues in Disability Scale focuses on measuring attitudes towards
various physical disabilities and PWDS in general (Makas et al., 1988); and the
Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale is centered on measuring discomfort in social
interaction with PWDS (Gething & Wheeler, 1992) (Findler, Vilchinsky, and Werner,
2007). Livneh and Antonak made the point that, the effectiveness of these scales

notwithstanding, these instruments face validity threats. For example, participants may

26

be sensitized to a particular attitude domain (response sensitization). In this case,
because in reality they may not have knowledge about the domain, they may be
responding to a domain they have no disposition towards, and therefore their response
will be erroneous. Or they may become aware that their attitudes are being measured
(reactivity). As a result, they may refuse to provide personal responses or try to please
the researcher or try to give good a impression of themselves. Another problem is
responding to all the questions in the same way (response styles); for instance, they
may indicate disagreement on all the questions or they may choose a middle ground
and indicate somewhat agree (Livneh & Antonak). Because of the construct and
external validity problems faced by direct measures, researchers can also use indirect
methods, where participants are not aware that their attitudes are being measured
(Clarke & Crewe, 2000). '

In sum, attitudinal studies towards PWDS have centered on attitudes of
rehabilitation counselors, health professional, and students. The research on the
attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS have focused on a minute part of DCWS’ attitudes
towards PWDS (e. g., learning capacity of PWDS), making it difficult to understand
their general attitudes towards PWDS.

Negative attitudes towards PWDS can vary depending on the types of
disability, the gender and race of people, social context, and many other variables.
Future research can take these variables into account when examining the attitudes of
DCWS towards PWDS.

In summary, the literature addresses numerous topics relevant to this study.

The literature on DCWS and their attitudes towards DCWS is scant. The literature from

27

several discipline were included in order to better understand attitudes towards PWDS

and other important issues related to this study.

28

CHAPTER III
STUDY METHODOLOGY

Participants

This study is about the attitudes of DCWs’ towards PWDS in general, and the
relations between DCWS’ attitudes towards PWDS and the DCWs’ motivation for
choosing a career (direct care work, for example), number of years worked, level of
education, and gender and race. The population is direct care workers in group homes,
which are community-oriented residences that can be used as transitional residents or
permanent homes (Wright, 1980), in the Lansing area. There were more group homes
than other facilities where DCWS work, and thus there was the potential of getting
enough direct care workers to participate in the study. Also, there was more diversity in
terms of education and experience in the group homes than in the other facilities. A
total sample size of 150 was possible based on the number of group homes and the
willingness of some of the groups homes to participate.

The sample consisted of all races and both genders between the ages of 18 to
60, and both high school graduates and undergraduate students in the Lansing area.
Because group homes are 7 day/24 hour programs, the sample consisted of many
students and others who were also employed elsewhere, including other group homes.
Some of the participants were single, other were married with children, and some had
grand children. They help PWDS, predominantly those with severe disabilities, in many
important areas 24 hours a day, seven days a week, assisting them in daily living skills,
including grooming, basic math and readings, and cleaning, In addition, they clean the

group homes so that they are livable, and they accompany PWDS to appointments,

29

including medical appointments. DCWS have the opportunity to do recreational
activities with clients in the group home as well as in the community. Many of the
DCWS have worked in group homes for over ten years and have created good
relationship with their clients, even treating them like family members in terms of
spending their own money for outing trips with clients and for other necessities.

Participants were invited to participate in the study (Appendix C), and were
given information regarding the study (Appendix D). A hard copy of the Scale of
Attitude towards Disabled Persons (SADP) (Appendix B) was used to collect the data
for DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDs. In addition, a hard copy of DCWs’ demographic
and other variables questionnaire (Appendix A) was used to collects additional data.

One hundred and twenty eight DCWS who were currently working in four
group homes companies that serve individuals with developmental disabilities, brain
injuries, and other disabilities participated in the study. Based on power calculations, I
needed to get at least 96 participants to detect an effect size of 0.41 (with power of 95
and an alpha level of 5% for 2-tailed tests). The effect size was chosen based on
budget, project timeline, and clinical significance. Effect sizes exceeding 0.30 are
deemed clinically significant (Cole & Grizzle, 1966; Guyatt, 2002).
Instruments

The Scale of Attitude towards Disabled Persons (SADP) was used for data
collection on DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS. In addition, a demographic data sheet
was used to collect other relevant data. The demographic data sheet and the SADP

scale were both developed by Antonak (1982).

30

Demographic data sheet. The demographic sheet contained information on
participants’ age, race, marital status, gender, level of education, recent occupations,
knowing someone with a disability and in what capacity (sibling, for example),
knowledge of the condition and life circumstances of PWDS, fi'equency of contact with
PWDS, and intensity of contact with PWDS. These variables are included with the
SAPD scale forms (see Appendix B). Additional questions based on the feedback my
dissertation committee provided were included with the demographic questions
formulated by Antonak. The questions added were numbers 5 to 11, regarding
participants’ years of experience working as a DCW; their reasons for choosing to be a
DCW; the types of individuals with disabilities they work with; the work they perform
in the group homes; their feelings about the clients they work with; their training
needs; and their level of satisfaction working as a DCWS (Appendix A).

I chose SAPD by Antonak (1982) because it is multidimensional, as Opposed to
the Yuker et a1. (1996) scale, which is not. Also, three items in the Yuker scale have
been found to have negative total item correlations (Findler, Vilchinsky, and Werner,
2007 ). There are other very effective multidimensional scales; however, they are
focused on measuring attitudes towards specific disabilities, whereas this study
investigated attitudes towards disability in general. Also, the items in some of the
other instruments are very numerous. This can be a problem, especially for participants
who are impatient or for those with many life responsibilities. Another reason I chose
this scale was that, after consulting with experts in the field, I thought it would be an
appropriate instrument for my research questions. Moreover, I was also very familiar

with the work the author had done with other experts in the area of measuring attitudes.

31

A further reason is that participants’ attitudes towards PWDS (in the SAPD scale) have
been generated from different groups (parents, students, human service professional)
(Antonak, 1982).

According to Antonak (1982), the SAPD is made up of the general scale, which
has 24 Likert-type items, and three subscales, namely Optimism/Human Rights (Factor
1), Behavioral Misconceptions (Factor 2), and Pessimism/Hopelessness (Factor 3),
with 11, Seven, and six Likert-type scale respectively. The 24 Likert-type items are
designed to measure the general attitudes of people towards PWDs; they measure the
extent to which people perceive individuals with disabilities as similar or not to those
without disabilities (e.g., most disabled people feel sorry for themselves; disabled
people are the same as anyone else; and there should not be special schools for disabled
children) (see Appendix B). For the three subscales, the 11 items (Appendix E) of the
first subscale measure optimism attitudes, the seven items (Appendix F) of the second
subscale measure behavioral misconception attitudes, and the six items (Appendix G)
of the third subscale measure pessimist attitudes. The Likert scale has three positive
and three negative scales (+ 3 = I agree very much, + 2 = I agree pretty much, + 1=I
agree a little, -1=I disagree a little, -2 = I disagree pretty much, -3 = I disagree very
much) (Ary, Jacobs, & Razavieh, 1990), and individual score on the SAPD scale
range from -3 to +3, -3 indicating a negative attitudes and +3 3 positive attitude
(Antonak 1982).

The total scores on the general SAPD scale range fiom 0 to 144; 0 indicates a
negative attitude toward persons with a disability, and 144 a positive attitude toward

persons with a disability (Antonak, 1982). For subscale 1, the scale range from -33 to

32

+33, -33 indicating a negative attitudes and +33 a positive attitude; for subscale 2, the
scale range from -21 to +21, -21 indicating a negative attitudes and +21 a positive
attitude; and for subscale 3, the scale range fiom -18 to +18, -18 indicating a negative
attitudes and +18 a positive attitude. There are no reference points for classifications,
such as moderate positive and high positive, but one can say that a person with a score
of 130 has a more positive attitudes than a person with a score of 76 (R. Antonak,
Personal Communication, April 27, 2010) in press). While there are no cutting points
for positive and negative attitudes some would be comfortable saying that a person
with a score of 96 has some positive attitudes (F. Chan, Personal Communication,
April 28, 2010). Also, Antonak stated that half of the items were written so that a
response of agreeing indicates a favorable attitude and half of the items were written so
that a response of disagreeing also indicates a positive response.
Furthermore, Antonak (1982) made the point that the test is scored by reversing

the sign of the response for those items worded negatively (items #1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
14, 17, 18, 19, and 22). Then the sum of the 24 responses is calculated for the general
SADP scale; for the subscales, the sum of the 11 items are calculated for subscale 1,
the sum of the seven items for subscale 2, and the sum of the six items for subscale 3.
In order to avoid any negative scores; a constant of 72 is added to the sum of the
general SADP score, 33 for subscale l, 21 for subscale 2, and 18 for subscale 3
(Antonak).

Accordingly, the sum of all the items checked by a participant represents the
person’s total score, and higher scores on this instrument indicate more positive

attitudes toward persons with disabilities (Palmer, Redinius, & T ervo, 2000) while

33

lower scores indicate more negative attitudes. This approach permits ranking
individuals in terms of the favorableness of their attitudes towards a certain object. The
scale has relatively high reliability (Palmer, Redinius, & Tervo). Antonak (1982)
reported the development and psychometric analysis of this scale. The results of
Antonak’s research indicate that the instrument is reliable (Pearson correlation of .81)
and internally consistent (alpha = .88) (Palmer, Redinius, & Tervo, 2000). For the
subscale l, 2, and 3 in particular, the reliability indices are .81, .77, and .82
respectively. The items within each subscale are similar, reliable, specific, and
independent (Benham, 1988).
Procedure

I recruited participants by first contacting companies that run group homes and
asking them to participate in my study. Four companies were willing to participate, and
about twelve group homes run by the four different companies participated. After the
approval of my proposal by my committee members and getting IRB clearance,
employees in the group homes (with the permission of the group home management)
were invited to participate in the project. In most of the group homes, I was invited
during their monthly meetings. In three of the group homes, I had to make several
visits because they were not having monthly meetings and it was difficult to get all, or
most, of the employees together.

The participants were asked to read the invitation (see Appendix C) and the
form that explained the study and informed them about the risks and benefits of
participation and the confidentiality guaranteed (See Appendix D). They were told they

had to read the documents before responding to the questionnaires so that they would

34

understand their rights and have knowledge about the study and other important issues.
A couple of participants wanted to respond to the questionnaires without reading the
documents, but I asked them to read first and then respond, and they did. Participants
were informed that they had to be at least 18 years old, and that by completing and
submitting their responses they were consenting to take part in the sturdy. The
participants were also informed that participation in the study was voluntary and that
they could withdraw at any time.

To guarantee the confidentiality of the participants, I told the participants not to
include their names or other information that might make it possible to identify them,
and I shuffled the copies of responses I received from the individuals before placing
them in a bag. Likewise, to guarantee confidentiality of the group homes, I told the
participants not to include the name of their group home, and I used one bag to collect
the answers from all the group homes. Also, I shuffled the copies of responses from
each successive group home with the copies already collected from the other group
homes. The participants’ responses were locked in a bag and the computer where I
recorded the responses had a password.

After they read the consent forms, I gave them opportunities to ask questions.
A couple of the participants in one of the group homes had questions regarding
questions 15 and 19. In another group a participants had questions about the keys in the
survey. I explained the questions and the key issue and they did not have further
questions.

There were a couple of participants who came while the others were already

answering the questionnaires. I followed the same procedure as above, explaining the

35

study to them and giving them the invitation and consent form to read. After they
finished answering their questionnaires, they handed me their answers. I shuffled the
forms in front of them as they handed them to me.

There were about 10 participants who did not attend the meetings and therefore
they could not participate. In one group home, the manager told me a couple of days
later that only one of the three in his group home was willing to participate. I did not
have him participate because of my limited resources to travel back and forth. One
participant refused to participate even though he was present for the meeting. He
handed me a blank form.

In the group homes where I made several trips because they were not having
meetings, participants did the questionnaires individually. I followed the same
procedures as I did with the group homes that had meetings (see above). Two
employees refused to participate, and some were not available. In one of the group
homes, two were not available and it was difficult for me to travel back and forth to ask
them to participant. In the other group home, I knew about five or six employees and
they did not participate. In addition, one group home owned by one of the group home
companies did not participate because I could not reach the manager to give me
permission to do my study there.

Administering the survey and receiving the minimum number of participants
needed for the study took about three weeks. The participants had to respond to 38
questions that included demographic information, and to the SAPD questionnaire (see
Appendix B). Since many of the potential participants had no college degree and

perhaps, as a result, were less familiar with computer use, and since I wanted to be as

36

uniform as possible with the procedure of distributing the instruments and collecting
the data, I decided to use hard copies rather than the intemet.

In most of the group homes, I collected the surveys on the same day I
distributed them. In two group homes, I had to leave the questionnaires with the
participants, and I collected them later. The participants who handed me their responses
got their lottery numbers that I put in a box, and then the secretary of the rehabilitation
counseling program drew two numbers from the box. I informed the group homes of
the lottery winner and made an appointment to give them their prizes, $ 100 for the
first winner and $ 50 for the second winner.

I have worked in group homes as a direct care worker, and have performed the
same duties as those done by the DCWS in this study. I currently work in two of the
group homes participating in this study and know some of the DCWS. However, the
participants I know did not participate in the study. My first-hand experience in group
home settings provided me a unique preparation for observing DCWS as they carried
out their duties. I had previously Observed that there is a need for training DCWS
regarding their attitudes towards PWDS, and I have learned fi'om some studies
(Benham, 1988; Brostrand, 2006; & Shur, Kruse, Blasi, and Blanck, 2009) that the
general population has negative attitudes towards PWDS and that demographic
variables do impact attitudes towards PWDS.

Design

This study was exploratory and descriptive in nature. It used a survey design

and quantitative methods to investigate the attitudes of DCWS. Since this study did not

utilize random sampling of participants and group homes, it would be premature to

37

generalize the findings to DCWS in Lansing or elsewhere. The rationale for sampling
from group homes is that there are more group homes than other facilities where
DCWs work, and thus there was the potential of getting enough direct care workers to
participate in the study. Also, there is more diversity of education and experience in
group homes than in other facilities, since group homes operate 24 hours 7 days a
week, making it possible for disparate people to work there, including students and
others who already have other employment.

This study used descriptive statistics, and general linear model because of a
mixture of continuous and categorical variables. Because these variables (age, sex,
gender, reason for choosing direct care work, and level of education) cannot be easily
manipulated for experimental control purposes, using an experimental design was not
appropriate; rather, a non-experimental design was more appropriate.

Data Analysis

To pursue this study as an exploratory investigation of the attitudes of direct
care workers (in group homes) towards PWDS, the following research questions were
addressed:

1) What are the attitudes of DCWs’ towards PWDS?

2) Will DCWS’ motivation for choosing direct care work (in group homes) impact their
attitudes towards PWDS?

3) Will DCWs’ amounts of experience in working with PWDS (in group homes) impact
their attitudes towards PWDS?

4) Will DCWs’ level of education impact their attitudes towards PWDS?

38

5) Will other demographic variables (age, gender, and race) of DCWS affect their
attitudes towards PWDS?

For the first question, I did a summary analysis to get the overall frequency,
mean, and standard deviation. 1 used a general linear model to investigate question two
- whether DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work (in group homes) impact
their attitudes towards PWDS. For research question three - will DCWs’ (in group
homes) amounts of experience in working with PWDS impact their attitudes towards
PWDS? - I also used a general linear model. I used the same analysis for research
question four - Will DCWs’ (in group homes) level of education impact their attitudes
towards PWDS? Likewise, fOr question five - Will other demographic variables (age,
gender, and race) of DCWS affect their attitudes towards PWDS? I also used a general
linear model. In addition, I calculated eta to get the effect size and used a post hoc
analysis to investigate whether the means of the variables that had effects on the
attitudes of DCWS were significantly different fi'om another. For variables that did not
have effects on the attitudes of DCWS, I did a power analysis to see whether the
variables powers were sufficient or the sample sizes needed were sufficient to detect
the effects, if they existed.

The following chapter contains the results of the analysis that I used to answer

each of the research questions.

39

CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of DCWS towards
PWDS. In addition to investigating the general attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS, this
study also investigated the relation between DCWS’ attitudes and their motivation for
choosing a career (direct care work, for example), the number of years they have
worked, their level of education, and other DCW variables (gender, race, age, type of
work DCWS performed, whether feelings of DWCs changed, training need of DCWS,
level of satisfaction of DCWS, level of knowledge of DCWS, fiequency of contact of
DCWS, and population DCWS worked with). I used descriptive statistics and a general
linear model for DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS and for the relationship between
these attitudes and DCW demographic variables, and I used SPSS version 15 to
analyze my data. The following sections include participants’ demographics and a
summary of the analyses of (1) the attitudes of DCWS in general towards PWDS, (2)
the effect of DCW demographics on their attitudes towards PWDS, (3) the attitudes of
DCWS in relation to the SAPD subscales, and (4) the effects of DCW demographics on
the SAPD subscales.
DC W demographic variables
Of the 108 questionnaires I handed out, I received 104 back. Six participants
were dropped fi'om the study because of missing data or responses that were difficult to
understand. This represents a usable response rate of 90%. Of the four who refused to
participate, two told me they did not want to participate and the other two handed back

their responses with no answers. Information about the population was not available

40

because some of the group homes did not feel comfortable giving me information
about their employees.

Ninety-eight participants’ questionnaires were used in the study. Ages of the
participants ranged from 19 to 65. The mean age was 33.74 (SD = 12.46). There were
25 males and 73 females. The majority of the participants identified themselves as
African American/black (n=54), representing 55.1%. Thirty-five were whites (35.5%),
four were Latino/Hispanic/Puerto Rican (4.1%), one was Asian/Asian
American/Pacific Islander (1%), and four were other races (4.1%). For education,
participants’ responses were categorized into those with high school or GED (52%),
those with two years of college (20.4%), those with four years of college (19.4), and
those with more than four years of college (8.2%).

For their work experience, 14 (14.3%) had less than one year of experience, 40
(40.8%) had one to five years of experience, 22 (22.4%) had 5 to 10 years of
experience, 11 (11.4%) had 10 to 15 years of experience, and 10 (10.2%) had more
than 15 years of experience. There was one case of missing data. Regarding their
reasons for choosing direct care work, 63 (63.3%) indicated intrinsic reasons, and 42
(42.9) had extrinsic reasons. There were two cases of missing data.

Regarding type of disability DCWS work with, 63 (64.2%) indicated that they
worked with brain injuries (BI), 73 (74.7%) reported that they worked with
developmental disabilities (DD), 82 (83.9%). indicated that they worked with mental
retardation MR), and 72 (73.5) reported that they worked with psychiatric disability

(PD).

41

For work DCWS performed in the homes, 85 (85.8%) did personal care (PC),
77 (77.6) did education (E) related activities (teaching clients to cook, clean the house,
take the bus), 44 (44.9%) did house work (HW) (cooking, cleaning, etc.), and one (1%)
did other tasks. There were two missing values.

Regarding whether DCWs’ feelings changed over the years about the clients
they work with, 37 (37.8%) said their feelings changed and 55 (56.1) said they did not
change. For training needs or the areas they need training on, 57 (58.2%) indicated
needs related to working directly with clients (communication, teaching clients hygiene
skills), 45 (45.9%) had needs related to learning about disability, and 47 (48.2%) had
needs related to helping individuals with disabilities (CPR, giving medication, and
taking blood pressure).

For DCWs’ level of satisfaction in doing direct care work, two (2%) rated they
were not satisfied at all, 15 (15.3%) rated they were somewhat satisfied, 32 (34.7%)
rated they were satisfied, and 48 (49%) rated they were extensively satisfied. For
knowledge about the condition and life circumstances of persons with disability,
respondents rated their answers from 1 (no knowledge) to 6 (extensive knowledge).

Some of the categories were only rated by a couple of participants, and
therefore I decided to combine them so that there would be sufficient participants in
order to carry out my analysis. I combined categories one (not very knowledgeable)
and two (little knowledgeable); three (somewhat knowledgeable) and four
(knowledgeable); and five (very knowledgeable) and six (extensively knowledgeable).
So, instead of the six categories I had three, not very knowledgeable for those who

chose either one (not very knowledgeable) or two (little knowledgeable),

42

knowledgeable for those who chose either three (somewhat knowledgeable) or four
(knowledgeable), and very knowledgeable for those who chose either five (very
knowledgeable) or six (extensively knowledgeable) . For this question, 6 (6.1%) rated
one or two (not very knowledgeable), 34 (34.7%) three or four (knowledgeable), and
58 (59.2%) five or six (Very knowledgeable).

For the contact with PWDS question, that is, the frequency of DCWs’ contact
with PWDS, one (1 %) had very little contact, four (4.1%) had little contact, two (2%)
had some contact, 12 (12.2%) had frequent contact, 18 (18.4%) had very frequent

contact, and 61 (62.1%) had extensive contact.

43

Table 1: Demographic and other Characteristics of the Sample

 

Sex
Male
Female

Race/Ethnicity
Caucasian
Afiican American
Latino/Hispanic/Puerto Rican
Oriental
Asians/Asian American
Others

Education
High School/GRE
One/two years of College
Three/F our Years of College
More than Four Years of College

Worked Performed
Personal Care (PC)
Educating (E)
House Work (HW)

Other

Type of disability
Brain Injury (BI)
Developmental Disability (DD)
Mental Retardation (MR)
Psychiatric Disability (PD)

Training Need
Worked Directly with client (DWC)
Learning about Disability (LAD)
Helping Individual with Disability (HIWD)

25
73

35
54

01
04

52
20
19
08

84
77

01

63
83
82
72

57
45
47

25.05
74.05

35.05
55.05
04.01
00.00
01.00
04.01

52.00
20.04
19.04
08.02

40.78
37.38
21.36
01.00

21.00
27.67
27.33
24.00

38.26
30.20
31.54

Table l (Cont’d): Demographic and other Characteristics of the Sample

 

   

Feeling Change?
Yes 37 40.22
No 55 59.78

Reason for Choosing direct care work
Intrinsic 63 60.00
Extrinsic 42 40.00

Satisfaction Level

Not Satisfied at all 02 02.00
Somewhat Satisfied 15 15.03
Satisfied 32 34.07
Extensively Satisfied 48 49.00

Knowledge about Disability

Not Very Knowledgeable 01 10.02
Not knowledgeable 05 05.10
Somewhat Knowledgeable 11 11.22
Knowledgeable 27 27.55
Very Knowledgeable 32 32.65
Extensively Knowledgeable 22 22.45
Contact with PWDS
Very Little Contact 01 01.00
Little Contact 04 04.08
Some Contact 02 02.00
Frequent Contact 12 12.24
Very Frequent Contact 18 18.37
Extensive Contact 61 62.24

The following sections presents the findings of DCWs’ general attitudes, based
on the SAPD scale (questions one to 24 on the SAPD scale), and their specific

attitudes, based on the SAPDs’ three subscales, which are human right (questions one

45

to 11 on the SAPD scale), behavior misconception (questions 12 to 18 on the SAPD
scale), and pessimism (questions 19 to 24 on the SAPD scale).

[Analyses of DC Ws ’ attitudes in general towards P WDs
This research question was: What are the attitudes of DCWs towards PWDS?

Mean Analysis. I used descriptive statistics (M=85.26, SD=17.45) to answer this

question, based on the attitude survey responses (SADP).

Figure 1: Distribution of responses on the SAPD scale
Histogram

 

20-

M=85.26
SD=17.45
=94

Frequency

 

 

 

46

The data shows that the mean of DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS falls above
the mid point (72) of the SAPD subscale. The scores on the SAPD scale range from 0
to 144, with 0 indicating a negative attitude toward persons with a disability, and 144 a
positive attitude toward persons with a disability (Antonak, 1982). The DCWs’
attitudes towards PWDS ranged from 48 to 132, with a mean of 85.25, indicating that
the DCWS generally had moderately positive attitudes towards PWDS. Figure 1 shows
the distribution of the attitude scores. Twenty three participants fall below the 25
percentile, 47 below the 50 percentile, and 71 below the 95 percentile. On average the
direct care workers had positive attitudes towards PWDS. However, it is worth noting
that a small number of the DCWS (21) fall below the midpoint of the SAPD scale.

While this study was not set up to investigate individual items in the SAPD
scale, some results Show up that cut across the SAPD scales. In relation to the
individual items, DCWS had positive attitudes towards PWDS on all items except for
the second and sixth questions. However, in many of the items, especially those that
deal with ability (physical, learning, moral), their attitudes were just above the
midpoint (zero) of the 6-point scale of the SAPD, which ranges from -3 to +3. DCWS
attitudes on items regarding discrimination (questions 15, 16, 20, 21, and 23) were not
only positive, but also more positive than the rest of the items. Nevertheless, it is worth
noting that these positive attitudes in the area of discrimination were just above +1, but
below +2, on the 6-point scale of the SAPD. Table 3 summarizes these results.

Also, While DCWs’ attitudes were very moderately positive about the general
abilities (physical, moral, work) of PWDS, in one physical ability item (2), their

attitude was negative. While DCWs’ attitudes were not negative in relation to learning

47

(18), a very crucial area for human beings, including PWDS, they were low moderate

positive.

48

Table 2: Individual scores of DCWS towards PWDS

   

M SD
1. Children who are disabled should not be provided with a free 2.14 1.80
public education.
2.Persons who are disabled are not more accident prone than are -1.07 1.95
other people.

3.1ndividuals who are disabled are not capable of making moral -1.47 1.95
decisions.

4.Persons who are disabled should be prevented fiom having 1.27 1.82
children.

5.Persons who are disabled should be allowed to live where and .122 , 2.23
how they choose.

6.Adequate housing for persons who are disabled is neither too -.20 2.02
expensive nor too difficult to build.

7.Rehabilitation programs for persons who are disabled are too .82 1.92
expensive to operate.

8.Persons who are disabled are in many ways like children. -.50 2.13
9.Persons who are disabled need only the proper environment and .83 2.11
Opportunity to develop and express criminal tendencies.

10.Adults who are disabled should be involuntarily committed to 1.06 1.94
an institution following arrest.

11.Most persons who are disabled are willing to work. .22 1.98
12.1ndividuals who are disabled are able to adjust to life outside .42 2.13
an institution.

13.Adults who are disabled should not be prohibited fi'om .22 2.02
Obtaining a driver’s license.

14.Persons who are disabled should live with others who are .10 2.24
similarly disabled.

 

49

Table 2 (Cont’d): Individual scores of DCWS towards PWDS

 

M SD
15.Zoning ordinances should not discriminate against persons who 1.39 1.95
are disabled by prohibiting group homes in residential districts.
16.The opportunity for gainful employment should be provided to 1.62 1.62
persons who are disabled.
17.Children who are disabled in regular classrooms have an .71 2.10
adverse effect on other children.
l8.Simple repetitive work is appropriate for persons who are -.55 1.88
disabled.
19.Persons who are disabled show a deviant personality profile. -.03 2.00
20.Equal employment opportunities should be available to 1.58 1.80
individuals who are disabled
21 .Laws to prevent employers from discriminating against person 1.76 1.74
who are disabled should be passed.
22.Persons who are disabled engage in bizarre and deviant sexual .77 2.19
activity.
23.Workers who are disabled should receive at least the minimum 1.14 2.24
wage established for their jobs.
24.1ndividuals who are disabled can be expected to fit into our .56 2.13

competitive society.

2. DC Ws ’ demographics and other variables and efi’ect on their attitudes

Research question 2a

Research question 2a was: Do DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work
impact their attitudes towards PWDS?

To evaluate whether motivation for choosing direct care work affects the

attitudes of DWCs, their motivational levels were categorized into three categories:

50

intrinsic (51.1%), extrinsic (33.7%), and both (9.2%). There were two cases of missing
data. Participants wrote their motivations for choosing direct care work, and they
ranged from a need to get employment to wanting to help others. Based on their
motivations, I put them under one of the three categories mentioned above.

For analyzing whether DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work had an
effect on their attitudes towards PWDS, I used a general linear model. Both the
dependent variable, attitude towards PWDS, and the independent variable, DCWs’
motivation for choosing direct care work, were treated as categorical variables. The
data shows that motivation for choosing direct care work was not significant (F(2,
89)=0.935, p > 0.05), indicating that DCWs’ motivation for choosing direct care work
had no effect on their attitudes towards PWDS.

Research Question 2b

Research question 2b was: Will DCWS’ amounts of experience in working with
PWDS impact their attitudes towards PWDS?

For the question about years of experience as a direct care worker, responses
were categorized into less than one year, one to five years, five to 10 years, 5 to 15
years, and above 15 years. Fourteen (14.3%) had less than one year of experience, 40
(40.8%) had one to five years of experience, 22 (22.4%) had five to 10 years of
experience, 11 (11.4%) had 10 to 15 years of experience, and 10 (10.2%) had more
than 15 years of experience. There was one case of missing data.

For analyzing whether DCWs’ amounts of experience in working with PWDS
(in group homes) had an effect on their attitudes towards PWDS, I used a general linear

model. Both the dependent variable, attitude towards PWDS, and the independent

51

variable, DCWs’ amounts of experience in working with PWDS, were treated as
categorical variables. The data shows that DCWS’ amounts of experience in working
with PWDS was not significant (F(4, 88)=0.256, p > 0.05), indicating that DCWs’
amounts of experience in working with PWDS had no effect on attitudes towards
PWDS.

Research Question 2c

Research question 2c was: Will DCWs’ level of education impact their attitudes
towards PWDS?

For level of education, participants’ responses were categoriZed into those with
high school or GED (52%), those with two years of college (20.4%), those with four
years of college 19.4(%), and those with more than four years of college (8.2%).

For analyzing whether DCWs’ level of education had an effect on their attitudes
towards PWDS, I used a general linear model. Both the dependent variable, attitudes
towards PWDS, and the independent variable, DCWs’ level of education, were treated
as categorical variables. The data shows that DCWs’ level of education was not
significant (F(3, 90)= 2.345, p > 0.05), indicating that DCWs’ level of education had
no effect on attitudes towards PWDS.

Whether other demographic variables had effects on the attitudes of DCWS
were also calculated. Prominent variables based on my original framework did not
have effect on the attitudes of DCWs, while some non prominent ones did have effects.
Training needs, contact with PWDS, knowledge about PWDS, age of DCWS, race of
direct care workers, work performed by DCWS, level of satisfaction of DCWS, gender

of DCWS, educational level of DCWS, years of experience of DCWS, DCWs’

52

motivation for choosing direct care work, and whether feelings of DCWS have changed
or not did not have effects. Training needs, contact with PWDS, and knowledge about
PWDS had effects on the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS based on the SADP scale,
and training needs, knowledge, contact, and population DCWS worked with had effects
on DCWS attitudes based on the SADP subscales. The following section discusses the
results that were significant.
Research Question for 2d

This research question was: DO the training needs of DCWS affect their
attitudes towards PWDS?

In regards to the question about training needs, participants wrote what
their training needs were; they ranged fiom need to learn about disability or PWDS to
help PWDS (leanring about first aid or how to give mediation in order to help PWDS
with these skills) to directly working with PWDS (how to help clients in hygiene
skills or doing activities with clients). So participants who had needs that focus on
learning about disability were grouped under “needs related to LAD”; those with
needs related to learning skills in order to help PWDS were grouped under needs
relating to HIWD; and those who have needs related to working directly with them
were grouped under “needs related to DWC”, and those with combinations were
grouped accordingly.

In sum, respondents’ answers were categorized into work need related to (a)
working directly with clients ((communication, teaching clients hygiene skills) (DWC)
35 (35.7), (b) learning about disability and disability issues (LAD) (7 (7.1%), (c)

helping individuals with disabilities (CPR, giving medications, taking blood pressure)

53

(HIWD) 9 (9.2), and (d) none. However, there were other categories since some DCWS
had more than one need. The other categories were (a) DWC, LAD, and HIWD, 14
(14.3%), (b) DWC and LAD, 4 (4.1%), (c) DWC and HIWD, 4 (4.3%), ((1) LAD and
HIWD, 20 (20.4%). There were five missing values.

For analyzing whether the training needs of DCWS had an effect on their
attitudes towards PWDS, I used a general linear model. Both the dependent variable,
attitude towards PWDS, and the independent variable, training needs of DCWS, were
treated as categorical variables. The data shows that DCWs’ training needs was
significant (F (6, 93)= 4.974, p < 0.05), indicating that training needs of DCWS do have
an effect on attitudes towards PWDS.

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was large, as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.264). Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed fi'om group to group significantly:

a) The mean for DCWS whose training needs are related to directly working
with clients (DWC) (M=86.43, SD=14.81) was significantly different fiom the mean of
DCWS whose training needs are related to a combination of working directly with
clients, to learning about disability, and to helping individuals with disability (HIWD)

=66.21, SD=16.94). (b) the mean for DCWS whose training needs are related to
LAD (M=96.33, SD=11.41) was significantly different from the mean of DCWS whose
training needs are related to a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (M=66.21,
SD=16.94); (c) the mean for DCWS whose training needs are related to HIWD
(M=89.44, SD=14.07) was significantly different from the mean of DCWS whose

training needs are related to a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (M=66.21,

54

SD=16.94); (d) the mean of DCWS whose training needs are related to a combination
of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (M=66.21, SD=16.94) was significantly different fi'om the
mean of all of the groups, except for the mean of those whose training needs related to
DWC and HIWD; (e) the mean for DCWS whose training needs are related to a
combination of DWC and LAD (M=105.33, SD=23.29) was significantly different
from the mean of DCWS whose training needs are related to a combination of DWC,
LAD, and HIWD (M=66.21, SD=16.94); (f) the mean of DCWS whose training needs
are related to a combination of DWC and HIWD (M=85.50, SD=13.13) was not
significantly different from the mean of any of the other groups; and (g) the mean of
DCWS who did not have training needs (M=88.74, SD=17.83) was significantly
difierent from the mean of DCWS whose training are related to a combination of DWC,
LAD, and HIWD (M=66.21, SD=16.94).

Table 3 summarizes the means of the groups for training needs related to (1)
working directly with clients (DWC), (2) learning about disability (LAD), (3) helping
individuals with disabilities (HIWD), (4) DWC, LAD, and HIWD, (5) DWC and

LAD, (6) DWC and HIWD, (7) LAD and HIWD, and 8) no needs (NN).

55

Table 3: Means for Training Needs Categories

m

   

Training Need N Mean Std. DeviatiOn
1. DWC * ' 35" ’ " i ' ’ 86.43 14.81 ‘
2. LAD 6 96.33 11.41
3. HIWD 9 89.44 14.07
4. DWC, LAD, & HIWD 14 66.21 16.94
5. DWC & LAD 3 105.33 23.29
6. DWC&HIWD 4 85.50 13.13
7. LAD&HIWD 0

8. NN 19 88.74 17.83

Research Question 2.e

The research question was: Does the DCWs’ level of contact with PWDS affect
their attitudes towards PWDS?

For frequency of contact, respondents’ answers were categorized into (a) very
little contact, (b) little contact, (0) some contact, (d) frequent contact, (e) very fi'equent
contact, and (f) extensive contact. One (1%) rated very little contact, four (4.1%) little
contact, two (2%) some contact, 12 (12.2) frequent contact, 18 (18.4%) very frequent
contact, and 61 (61.3%) extensive contact.

For analyzing whether DCWs’ level of contact with PWDS had an effect on
their attitudes towards PWDS, I used a general linear model. The dependent variable,
attitudes towards PWDS, and the independent variable, DCWS’ level of contact with

PWDS, were treated as categorical variables. The data shows that DCWs’ level of

56

 

contact with PWDS was significant (F(S, 94)= 2.280, p < 0.05), indicating that DCWS’
level of contact with PWDS does have an effect on attitudes towards PWDS.

The magnitude in difference in mean score between the groups was large as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.64). Those with very little contact (V LC)
only had one response and as a result could not be analyzed. Post-hoe comparisons
using the Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group
significantly: (a) The mean for those with little contact with PWDS (LC-PWDS)
(M=74.50, SD=15.20) was not significantly different fi'om any of the other groups; the
mean for those with some contact with PWDS (SC-PWDS) (M=73, SD=14.14) was not
significantly different from the other groups; (b) the mean for those with fi'equent
contact with PWDS (FC-PWDs) (M=90.67, SD=16.16) was significantly different from
the mean for those with very frequent contact with PWDS (VFC-PWDS) (76.17,
SD=11.18); (c) the mean for those with VFC-PWDS (M=76.17, SD=11.18) was
significantly different fiom the mean for those with FC-PWDs (M=90.67, SD=16.16)
and those with extensive contact (EC-PWDS) (M=87.90 SD=18.50); and (d) the mean
for those with EC-PWDs (M=87.90, SD=18.50) was significant different from the
mean of group those with VFC-PWDS (76.17, SD=11.18).

Tables 4 summarizes the means of the groups: (1) very little contact, (2) little
contact, (3) some contact, (4) frequent contact, (5) very frequent contact, and (6)

extensive contact.

57

 

Table 4: Means for Contact with PWDS Categories

   

Contact N Mean Std. Deviation
1. Very Little contact 8 1 l I I I 1 I 1 1 101.00.

2. Little contact 4 74.50 15.20
3. Some Contact 2 73.00 14.14
4. Frequent Contact 12 90.67 16.16
5. Very Frequent Contact 18 76.17 11.18
6. Extensive Contact 57 87.90 18.50
Research Question 2f

The research question was: Do DCWs’ levels of knowledge about the
disabilities of DCWS affect their attitudes towards PWDS?

For knowledge about disability, respondents rated their answers from 1 (no
knowledge) to 6 (extensive knowledge). As I stated above, some of the answers in the
question about knowledge about disability were only rated by a couple of participants,
and therefore I decided to combine the groups so that there would be sufficient
participants in the groups in order to do my analysis. I combined the two lowest levels
of knowledge and referred to them as not very knowledgeable (NVK). I combined the
next two lowest levels of knowledge and called them knowledgeable (K). Also, I
combined the two highest levels of knowledgeable and referred to them as very
knowledgeable (VK). For this question, (a) six (6.1%) rated the two lowest levels of
knowledge, NVK, (b) 34 (34.7%) the next two lowest levels of knowledgeable, K, and

(c) 58 (59.2%) the two highest levels of knowledgeable, VK.

58

For analyzing whether DCWs’ level knowledge about disability had an effect
on their attitudes towards PWDS, I used a general linear model. The dependent
variable, attitudes towards PWDS, and the independent variable, DCWs’ level
knowledge about disability, were treated as categorical variables. The data shows that
DCWs’ level of knowledge about disability was significant (F(2, 94)= 7.903, p < 0.05),
indicating that DCWs’ level of knowledge about the disabilities of PWDS does have an
effect on attitudes towards PWDS.

The magnitude of difference in mean score between the groups was medium to
large, as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.129). Post-hoe comparisons using
the Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group significantly:
The mean for those who are very knowledgeable (M=91, SD=15.62) was significantly
different from the mean of those who are knowledgeable (M=77.59, SD=18.26). The
remaining variables listed on page 17 were not significant.

3. DC Ws ’ specific attitudes towards PWDS in relation to SAPD ’s subscale

The previous section presents the results on the attitudes of DCWS towards
PWDS, which are generally positive; some DCWs’ demographic variables did
influence their attitudes towards PWDS. It is also worth investigating DCWs’ specific
attitudes towards PWDS. The SAPD, which is a multidimensional scale, provided the
possibility to investigate specific attitudes - optimism/human rights (subscale l),
behavioral misconceptions (subscale 2, and pessimism/hopelessness (subscale 3).
Further, it is worth investigating whether DCWs’ demographic variables had effects on

these subscales of the SAPD scale. The following section will discuss the specific

59

attitude (in relation to the subscales) of DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS and the effects
of DCWs’ demographics on these specific attitudes towards PWDS.

Since the SAPD is a multidimensional scale, descriptive statistics were also
used to investigate DCWs’. attitudes towards PWDS in terms of the three subscales of
the SAPD: human rights (factor 1), behavioral misconceptions (Factor 2), and
pessimism (Factor 3). I also investigated whether demographic variables had effects on
these. The following section will discuss the attitudes of DCWS in general towards
PWDS and the effect of DCWS demographics on their more specific attitudes towards
PWDS
Research Question 3a

The research question was: What are the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in
relation to optimism/human rights (subscale 1)?

To evaluate the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in relation to human rights, the
mean for subscale 1 was calculated (M=36.53, SD=7.80).

The data shows that the mean falls above the mid point (33). The scores in the
SAPD scale ranged from 0 to 66, with 0 indicating a negative attitude toward persons
with a disability, and 66 a positive attitude towards PWDS in relation to human Rights
(Antonak, 1982). The DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS range fi'om 16 to 60, with a
mean of 36.53; this indicates that the DCWS generally had moderately positive
attitudes towards PWDS in relation to optimism/human rights.

Research Question 3b
The research question was: What are the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in

relation to behavioral misconceptions (Factor 2)?

60

To evaluate the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in relation to behavioral
misconceptions, the mean for this scale was calculated (M=24.89, SD=6.93.

The data shows that the mean falls above the mid point (21). Scores in the
SAPD scale range from 0 to 42, with 0 indicating a negative attitude toward persons
with a disability, and 42 a positive attitude towards PWDS in relation to
optimism/human rights (Antonak, 1982). The DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS ranged
fi'om 10 to 42, with a mean of 24.89, indicating that the DCWS generally had
moderately positive attitudes towards PWDS in relation to behavioral misconceptions.
Research Question 3 c

The research question was: What are the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in
relation to pessimism/hopelessness (Factor 3)?
To evaluate the attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS in relation to
pessimism/hopelessness, the mean for this scale was calculated (M=23.78, SD=6.62).

The data shows that the mean falls above the mid point (18). The scores in the
SAPD scale range from 0 to 36, with 0 indicating a negative attitude toward persons
with a disability, and 36 a positive attitude towards PWDS in relation to
optimism/human rights (Antonak, 1982). The DCWS attitudes towards PWDS ranged
from 6 to 36, with a mean of 23.78, which is above the midpoint (18); this indicates a
positive attitudes, but not the highest positive attitudes in relation to
pessimism/hopelessness.
4. DC W demographics and their effects on DC Ws ’ specific attitudes in the SAPD

subscale

61

Whether demographic variables have effects on the attitudes of DCWS towards
PWDS in relation to human rights, behavioral misconception, and pessimism (the three
subscales of the SAPD) was also calculated. The following section presents each
subscale separately.

Research question 4a]

Did the demographic variables of DCWS in relation to optinrisrn/human rights
(the SAPD first subscale) have an effect on their attitudes towards PWDS?

For DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS in relation to optimism/human rights
(Factor 1), training need and knowledge were the only variables that were significantly
based on the general model analysis, indicating that they affected DCWs’ attitudes
towards PWDS in relation to optimism.

Training Need. The results show that DCWs’ training need in relation to
subscale 1 is significant (F=4.30, P < 0.05).

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was large, as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.235). Post-hoe comparisons using
Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group significantly: (a)
The mean for DCWS whose training needs relate to direct working with clients (DWC)
(M=37.66, SD=7.24) was significantly different from the mean for DCWS whose
training needs relate to a combination of directly working with clients (DWC), learning
about disability (LAD), and helping individuals with disability (HIWD) (M=28.79,
SD=5.91); (b) the mean for DCWS whose training needs relate to LAD (38.43) was not
significantly different from the mean of any of the other groups; (c) the mean for those

whose training needs relate to a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (28.79) was

62

significantly different from the mean for those whose training needs relate to DWC,
(37.66), HIWD (39.11), and those with no training needs (37.89); ((1) the mean for
those whose training needs relate to a combination of DWC and LAD 5 (45.33) was
not significantly different fi'om the mean of any of the other groups; and (e) the mean
for those whose training needs relate to a combination of DWCs and HIWD (33.25)
was not significantly different fiom the mean of any of the other groups.

Tables 8 summarizes the means for the groups: (1) DWC, (2) LAD, (3) HIWD,
(4) DWC, LAD, & HIWD, (5), DWI & LAD, (6) DWC & HIWD, (7) LAD & HIWD,

and (8) NN.

63

T."

 

Table 5: Means for Training Needs Categories in Subscale l

   

 

Training Need N Mean Std. Deviation

2. LAD 7 38.43 3.51

3. HIWD 9 39.11 4.66

4. DWC, LAD, & HIWD 14 28.79 5.91

5. DWC & LAD 3 45.33 13.05 I
6. DWC & HIWD 4 33.25 12.69 L__
7. LAD & HIWD

8. NN 19 37.89 6.90

Knowledge about PWDS. The resultsshow that DCWS’ level of knowledge in
relation to subscale 1 is significant (F=3.36, P < 0.05).

The magnitude of differences in mean scores between the groups was small, as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.048). Post-hoe comparisons using
Bonferroni test did not show any mean differences between and among groups.

The mean for the different categories are: (1) Not very knowledgeable (M
=35.17; SD =5.98), (2) Knowledgeable (M =34.00; SD = 7.75), and. (3) very
knowledgeable (38.24; SD =7.66).

Research Question 4 b

64

The research question was: Did the demographic variables of DCWS towau'ds
PWDS in relation to behavioral misconception (the SAPD second subscale) towards
PWDS have an effect on their attitudes?

For behavioral misconception, the p values for population, knowledge, and
contact were significant.

Population DWC worked with. The results showed that the population DCWs’
worked with, in relation to subscale 2, was significant (F=2.00, P < 0.05). t

In response to the question about the type of disability employees work with,

responses were categorized into (a) work with brain injuries (BI), accounting for four

 

(4.1%) of the participants; (b) developmental disabilities (DD), accounting for four
(4.1%); (0) mental retardation MR), representing four (4.1%); (d) psychiatric disability
(PD), accounting for nine (9.2%); and others, accounting for zero (0%). However,
because many worked with more than one category, there were other categories. The
other groups were (a) BI, DD, MR, and PD 28 (28.6); (b) MR and PD 10(510.2%); (c)
BI, DD, and MR six (6.1%); ((1) Bl, DD, and MR 10 (10.2%); (e) BI and DD 12 (12.5);
(f) BI, MR, and PD four (4.1%); (g) BI and PD five 5 (5.1%); (h) DD, MR, and PD 10
(10.2%); and (I) DD and MR two (2%).

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was medium
to large, as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.103). Post-hoc comparisons
‘ using Bonferroni test did not show any mean differences between and among groups.

Table 10 summarizes the means for the groups for population in subscale 2 are
below. They included: (1) Brain Injury (BI), (2) Developmental Disability (DD), (3)

Mental Retardation (MR), (4) Psychiatric Disability (PD), (5)0ther (O), (6) Bl, DD,

65

MR, and PD, (7) Bl, MR, and PD, (8) BI and DD, (9) DD, MR, and PD, (10) DD and

MR, (11) DD and PD, (12) MR and PD; (13) BI, DD, and MR, (14).

Table 6: Means for Population DCWS Work with Categories in Subscale 2

 

Population Std.

N Mean Deviation
2. DD 4 27.50 2.38
3. MR ‘ 4 31.50 8.23
4. PD 9 27.11 6.27
5. O 0.0 0.0
6. Bl, DD, MR, & PD 28 24.61 7.31
7. Bl, MR, and PD 10 27.10 5.82
8. Bland DD 6 25.50 6.28
9. DD, MR, and PD 10 22.60 5.44
10. DD and MR 11 22.73 6.93
11. DD and PD 4 23.25 6.13
12. MR and PD 5 19.00 5.79
13. BI, DD, and MR 2 37.00 2.83

 

Knowledge. The results show that DCWs’ level of knowledge in relation to

subscale 2 is significant (F=4.44, P < 0.05).

66

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was medium,
as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.067). Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed fi'om group to group significantly:
The mean for those who are very knowledgeable (26.58) is significantly different from
the means of those who are knowledgeable (36.00).

The mean for the different groups are (1) knowledgeable (1) not very
knowledgeable (M =22.00; SD =4.10), (2) knowledgeable (M = 22.56; SD =6.74), and i
(3) very knowledgeable (M =26.58; SD = 6.85).

Contact. The results show that DCWs’ level of contact in relation to subscale 2

 

is significant (F=2.88, P > 0.05).

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was medium,
as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.089). Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group significantly: (a)
The mean for those with some contact with PWDS (SCPWDs) (16.50) was
significantly different from the mean of those with extensive contact (ECPWDS)
(26.17); (b) the mean for those with very firequent contact with PWDS (VF CPWD)
(35.00) was significantly different from the mean of the group with extensive contact
with PWDS (ECPWDs) (26.17).

Tables 12 summarizes the means of the groups: (1) very little contact, (2) little
contact, (3) some contact, (4) frequent contact, (5) very frequent contact, and (6)

extensive contact.

67

Table 7: Mean for Contact Categories in Subscale 2

Contact N Mean Std. Deviatio
m

2. Little Contact 4 19.75 2.87

3. Some Contact 2 16.50 7.78

4. Frequent Contact 12 25.75 7.39

5. very frequent contact 18 21.61 6.29

6. Extensive Contact 60 26.17 6.66

Research Question 4 c
The research question was: Did the demographic variables of DCWS in relation
pessimism (the SAPD third subscale) have an effect on their attitudes towards PWDS?
For pessimism, the p values of training need, knowledge, and contact were
significant.

Training Need. The result shows that DCWs’ training need in relation to

 

subscale three is significant (F=4.92, P < 0.05).

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was large, as
indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.204). Post-hoc comparisons using
Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group significantly: (a)
The mean for those whose training needs related to directly working with clients
(DWC) (23.83) was significantly different from the mean for those whose training

needs related to a combination of working with DWC, learning about disability (LAD),

68

 

and helping individuals with disability (HIWD) (17.14); (b) the mean for those whose
training needs related to LAD (28.26) was significantly different fiom the mean for
those whose work needs related to a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (17.14);
(c) the mean for those whose training needs related to HIWD (24.78) was not
significantly different from the mean of any of the other groups; (e) the mean for those
whose training needs related to a combination of DWC and LAD (32.00) was
significantly different from the mean for those whose training needs related to g .

combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD (17.14), and those who had no training needs

 

(36.00); and (f) The means of those with no training needs was significantly different
from the mean of those whose training needs related to a combination of DWC, and
LAD and HIWD.

Tables 13 summarizes the means for the groups: (1) DWC, (2) LAD, (3)
HIWD, (4) DWC, LAD, & HIWD, (5), DWI & LAD, (6) DWC & HIWD, (7) LAD &

HIWD, and (8) NN.

69

Table 8: Means for Training Needs Categories in subscale 3

Training Need N Mean Std. Deviation
2. LAD 7 28.26 4.99

3. HIWD 9 24.78 4.32

4. DWC, LAD, & HIWD 14 17.14 7.65

5. DWC & LAD 4 32.00 2.94

6. DWC & HIWD 4 26.00 7.62

7. LAD & HIWD

8. NN 20 24.75 5.83

Knowledge. The results show that DCWs’ training need in relation to subscale
three is significant (F=7.56, P < 0.05).

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was medium
to large, as indicated by the effect size (eta squared=0.119). Post-hoe comparisons
using Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed fi'om group to group
significantly: The mean for those who are knowledgeable (21.02) was significantly
different from the mean of those who are very knowledgeable (25.79).

The means for the knowledge category are (1) not very knowledgeable (2.40),
(2) Knowledgeable (21.02), and (3) very knowledge (25.79).

QM The results Show that DCWs’ training need in relation to subscale l is

significant (F=3.66, P < 0.05).

70

The magnitude in differences in mean scores between the groups was medium
to large, as indicated by the effect size (eta squared =0.121). Post-hoc comparisons
using Bonferroni test showed the mean scores differed from group to group
significantly: (a) The mean for those with little contact with PWDS (18.25) was
significantly different fiom the mean for those with fiequent contact with PWDS
(26.75) and for those with extensive contact with Pst (24.89); (b) the mean for those

with frequent contact with PWDS (26.75) was significantly different from the mean for t-

 

those with little contact (18.25) and for those with very frequent contact (19.56); (c)

and the mean for those with very fi'equent contact (19.56) was significantly different ‘-

 

fi'om the mean for those with frequent contact (26.75) and for those with extensive
contact (24.89).

Tables 15 summarizes the means of the groups: (1) very little contact, (2) little
contact, (3) some contact, (4) fiequent contact, (5) very firequent contact, and (6)

extensive contact.

71

Table 9: Mean for Contact in Subscale 3

 

   

Mean for Contact N Mean Std. Deviation

1. Very Little contact ' ’8 1 f " 29.00 '

2. Little contact 4 18.25 6.02

3. Some Contact 2 18.50 2.12

4. Frequent Contact 12 26.75 5.80 l
5. Very Frequent Contact 18 19.56 6.04 1
6. Extreme Contact 61 24.89 6.39

 

 

 

72

CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the attitudes of DCWS towards
PWDS. In addition to investigating the general attitudes of DCWS towards PWDS, this
study also investigated the relation between DCWs’ attitudes and their motivation for
choosing a career (direct care work, for example), the number of years they have worked,
their level of education, and other DCW variables (gender, race, age, type of work
DCWS performed, whether feelings of DWCs changed, training need of DCWS, level of
satisfaction of DCWS, level of knowledge of DCWS, frequency of contact of DCWS, and
population DCWS worked with). Some of the findings were significant, while others
were not. Because DCWS play paramount role in the lives of PWDS, helping them in
basic but crucial living activities, there are important implications in this study. The
following section summarizes the findings and presents the implications, including
directions for future research, limitatiOns of the study and the study’s conclusions.

In order to address this study’s research questions, a quantitative study was
conducted using the “Scale of Attitude towards Persons with Disability” (SAPD) and a
demographic survey. Findings show expected and unexpected results, positive and
negative attitudes towards PWDS, and significant and non significant differences
between variables and variable categories.

The general attitudes of DCWS (M=85.26) towards PWDS overall were
moderately positive. DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS in relation to the SAPD subscales
were moderately positive for the three subscales, that is, attitudes related to human rights

(subscale 1) (M=36.53), behavioral misconceptions (subscale 2) (M=24.89), and

73

 

pessimism (subscale 3) (M=23.78). While Antonak (Personal Communication, April
27, 2010) stated that the use of “moderate” or ”high” positive is not appropriate to
describe the attitudes towards PWD based on the SADP scale, Chan ( Personal
Communication, April 28, 2010) mentioned that he would feel comfortable in
attributing some positive attitudes for a person with a score of 96 on the general SAPD
scale; this is equivalent to 44 for subscale 1, 28 for subscale 2, and 24 for subscale 3.
Since the scores of DCWS fall above the midpoints for all of the scale, but just shy of the
point that Chan feels comfortable for attributing “some positive” attitudes, it would be
reasonable to say that DCWs’ score were moderately or some what positive in this sense.
Variables that impacted their attitudes in relation to these subscales were
training needs and knowledge about disability for subscale one; population that DCWS
worked with, knowledge about disability, and contact with PWDS for subscale two; and
training needs, knowledge about disability, and contact with PWDS for subscale three.

In relation to the individual items in the SAPD scale, DCWs’ attitudes were
negative on some of the items — two (Persons who are disabled are not more accident
prone than are other people) and six (Adequate housing for persons who are disabled is
neither too expensive nor too difficult to build). The demographic variables that had
impact on their general attitudes towards PWDS were training needs, knowledge about
disability, and contact with PWDS.

Attitudes towards PWDS based on SAPD and its subscales

Research regarding attitudes towards PWDS has been mixed. While studies

have shown that the general population has negative attitudes towards PWDS, some have

found positive attitudes among specific professional groups such as rehabilitation

74

 

 

 

counselors, employers, occupational therapists, and other health care workers (Byrd,
Byrd, & Emener, 1977; Huitt & Elston, 1991), and others have found negative attitudes
(Benham, 1988; Farina & Felner, 1973; Kaplan & Thomas, 1981 Parkinson, 2006;
Spengler, Strohmer, & Prout, 1990). On average DCWS have a moderate, positive
attitude towards PWDS on both the general SAPD scale and its subscales. A study in

9

another area has likewise found positive attitudes; Terry ((1990) focused on nurse aides

 

attitudes towards ethnic patients in nursing, and found that DCWs’ attitudes were

positive in this regard. However, in my study, it is worth noting that a small percent, 22.

 

3% did not have positive attitudes towards PWDS.

In relation to individual items on the SAPD scale, which was not part of the
initial framework of this study, some results showed up that cut across the three
subscales as a stated earlier. DCWs’ attitudes were very moderately positive about the
general abilities (physical, moral, work) of PWDS, but in one physical ability item (2),
their attitude was negative. While DCWs’ attitudes were not negative in relation to

learning (18), they were low moderate positive. Other studies have focused on specific

 

attitudes. Rice, Rosen, and Macmann (1991) focused on expectations of DCWs regarding
the learning capacity of PWDS in a residential facility and found that DCWS attitudes
were negative in this regard, indicating perhaps that DCWS in group homes have much
more positive attitudes than DCWS in residential homes. This is positive news for group
homes; low positive attitude is promising for PWDS because learning is an important
component in our lives. While some individuals with disabilities have problems in this
area, many others who do not are considered as having difficulties learning or even being

incapable of doing complex tasks (Smart, 2001).

75

Relating to discrimination, on specific items their attitudes were positive and
more so than other items, but their attitudes were still low moderate. The attitudes of
DCWS may have been the highest in discrimination issues because most of the
participants were African American and as a minority group they might have identified
with PWDS. The low moderate positive attitude is surprising given America’s current
stance on equality, and the legislation such as the ADA that has been passed.

Variables ’ Effect and the SAPD and its Subscales

Effect of DCWs’ variables on the SAPD General Scale. The variables that had an
effect on the general attitudes of DCWS were “training needs”, knowledge about
disability, and contact with PWDS, and their effects were large, medium large and large
respectively. Research (Corrigan et al. 2001; Chung et al., 2001; Folsom-Meek, Nearing,
Groteluschen, & Krarnpf, 1999) has shown that contact with PWDS can lead to positive
attitudes towards them. Research (Ashwortlr et al., 1994; Conigan et al., 2001; Hunt &
Hunt, 2004) has also shown that knowledge about disability can affect attitudes towards
PWDS. In fact, education strategies try to change attitudes towards PWDS by educating
participants through providing knowledge about disability. Other variables did not have
effects on DCWs’ attitudes.

For example, motivation for choosing direct care work, years of work experience
in working .with PWDS, and educational level (three of the research questions in this
study) did not influence the attitudes of DCWS.

Effect of DCWs’ variables on the SAPD SubSches. For subscale 1 or
optimism/human rights (the SAPD first subscale) attitudes, only training need and

knowledge had effects on DCWs’ attitudes. While in this study, “years of work

76

 

 

 

experience” did not affect DCWS’ attitudes towards PWDS in relation to
optimism/human rights or subscale 1, other research (Benham, 1988) has shown that
there is a significant difference in optimism/human rights attitudes across years of work
experience. They found that those with 6 to 10 years of practice were less optimistic than
those with 16 or more years of practice

For subscale 2 only “population DCWS worked with”, “knowledge about
PWDS”, and “contact with PWDS” had effects. For subscale 3, variables of DCWS that
had effects on their attitudes towards PWDS were training need, knowledge, and contact.
The following section discusses these variables (in general and subscales) effects on the
attitudes of DCWS.
Variables and their eflects

Several prominent variables in my original fi'amework were not significant, while
other non prominent ones ended up being significant. The significant variables were
training needs, contact, population DWDs worked with, and knowledge.

Training Needs. Training needs had significant effects on the SAPD scale, and its
subscales, 1 and 3. Some differences between and among training need categories were
significant, indicating that these categories might have more positive or less positive
attitudes than one another. In all the scales, only the means of those whose training needs
were a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD were significantly different from the
means of all the other groups, indicating perhaps that they had lower attitudes than all the
other groups in all the subscales. Also, their attitudes were negative. The other group
attitudes were the same, as non-significant results were found among them. For the

general scale, those with a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD had less positive

77

 

 

attitudes than those with DWC, LAD, HIWD, those with a combination of DWC and
LAD, and those with no training needs. For subscale 1, those with a combination of
DWC, LAD, and HIWD had less positive attitudes than those with DWC, HIWD, and
those with no training needs. For subscale 3, those with a combination of DWC, LAD,
and HIWD had lower attitudes than those who had training needs of DWC, LAD, a
combination of DWC and LAD, and those with no needs.

The differences in training needs effects between the general attitude and
subscale 3 is that those with a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD had more positive
attitudes than those whose training needs were HIWDs in the SAPD scale, but not so in
subscale 3. In all the scales, those with a combination of DWC, LAD, and HIWD had
less positive attitudes than those whose training needs were DWC and those with no
training needs.

For all the scales, those whose needs related to DWC, LAD, and HIWD were
the only ones with negative attitudes. Helping DCWS work with less disability groups
may help them in their attitudes. Perhaps, the negative attitude of the group that worked
with more disability types may be due to over work, which in turn may have led to a
negative attitude towards PWDS.

The significant differences between their attitudes and those of the other groups
may reflect the idea that those with more work-related needs are not as competent as
those without such needs, and this might have influenced attitudes. The findings from the
current study are promising because DCWs’ training needs differ between and among

them.

78

 

M. Contact had effect on the SAPD scale, and its subscales, 2 and 3. All of
the categories under “contact” positively affected the attitudes of DCWS in the SAPD
scale. The effect of DCWs’ contact in this study was large. Other studies (Corrrigan et a1.
2001; Chung et al., 2001; F olsom-Meek, Nearing, Groteluschen, & Krarnpf, 1999) have
showed the positive effect of contact on attitudes towards PWDS.

For Subscale 3 and the general attitudes, all had positive attitudes. In subscale 2,
those with little contact and some contact had negative attitudes; however, there were no
significant differences between these two groups and the other groups, which had
positive attitudes, perhaps indicating that all the groups’ attitudes in relation to subscale 2
were the same.

Subscale 3 (pessimism/hopefirlness) is the only scale where there were some
significant differences between and among contact categories. Those with frequent
contact had more positive attitudes than those with very frequent contact. Those with
very extensive contact had a more positive attitude than those with very frequent contact.
For the significant differences between and among groups, amount of contact determine
more or less positive attitudes. There were no other significant differences between
categories in the other scales. The lack of significant differences in the other groups
perhaps indicated that these categories in contact had the same attitudes towards PWDS.

Population DCWS worked with. For “population DCWS worked with” in subscale
2, those who worked with BI and those who worked with a combination of MR and PD
had negative attitudes. It was surprising to see a non significant difference in attitude of
those who worked with PD and with the other groups since research (Smart, 2001) has

Shown that those with PD are the most stigmatized in our society.

79

 

 

 

Knowledge. For “knowledge about disability,” all the categories under
knowledge had positive effects towards PWDS. Others studies (Ashworth et al., 1994;
Conigan et al., 2001; Hunt & Hunt, 2004) have shown that even a week of educating
people about disability can positively impact their attitudes towards PWDS. Some of
these differences between and among knowledge categories in this study were
significant, indicating that these categories had effects on the attitudes of DCWS. For the
general attitudes, those with the greatest amount of knowledge had the most positive
attitudes, and their attitudes were more positive than those who were knowledgeable. For
subscale 2 and subscale 3, those with the greatest amount of knowledge had more
positive attitudes than those with least knowledge. While all the categories positively
affected DCWs’ attitudes towards PWDS, all levels of knowledge did not determine
more or less positive attitudes, for there were no significant differences between and
among some of the groups, indicating perhaps that some groups had the same attitudes
towards PWDS. For example, for subscale 1, there were no significant differences
between any of the groups. However, one would expect that the more knowledge the
better the attitudes towards PWDS, since other research has shown that knowledge about
disability can help in positive attitudes.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that those who are very knowledgeable had more
positive attitudes than those whose who are knowledgeable in the general scale and two
of the subscales - subscale 2 and subscale 3. This result was expected. This relationship
indicates the potential power of increasing DCWs’ attitudes (through helping them with
more knowledge about disability) in their attitudes regarding their general attitudes and

their attitudes regarding their pessimistic attitudes towards PWDS.

80

 

 

For non significant variables and variables categories, power analysis indicate
sufficient power may not have existed to detect the various effects, or that the sample
sizes needed were not sufficient to detect the effects, if they existed. The power results
were below the minimum bench mark of at least 80% (Cohen, 1988).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations in this study and they are worth mentioning.
The sample was purposive and therefore sample bias may have affected the study’s
results. Power calculation of a sample size of 96 was achieved, but making inferences
regarding DCWs in Lansing would be premature. Although the sample consisted of the
major ethnic groups in the Lansing area, most of the participants were Afiican American;
this sample is not representative of all the DCWs in Lansing area.

Also, I have worked in two of the group homes and am very familiar with the
situations there, and even in other group homes, since I have worked in group home
settings for over 16 years. Also, I know the management of some of the group homes and
they were the ones who recommended me to the other group homes. As a result, they
played a great role in helping bring the DCWs together so that I could administer the
survey. This might have made some not wanting to participate, and this might have
resulted in some DCWs not participating genuinely.

Since this study used direct methods to study attitudes, there is a possibility of
validity threat, such as reactivity responses, response style, and response sensitization
(Livneh & Antonak, 1994). According to Livneh and Antonak, reactive responses may
play a role in research outcomes. In other words, participants may discern that their

attitudes are being measured and as a result may give answers that would not represent

81

 

 

who they really are. For example, the respondent may want to help the researcher by
providing answers that would confirm the hypotheses; or they may try to give a good
impression of themselves as open-minded; or they may only endorse statements that
represent socially or culturally appropriate responses; or they may sabotage the study by
disclosing inaccurate attitudes; or they may not give accurate responses because of lack
of interest in the study; or they may be unwilling to share personal responses.

Livneh and Antonak (1994) also stated that response style may be another
problem. In this case, the participants may have responded affirmatively to all, or almost
all, of the items. It is also possible that they may have responded negatively.
Furthermore, they may rate items similarly that they perceive to be related. For example,
they may believe that a fiiendly person is also generous and as a result may rate their
attitudes accordingly in other situations even when the fiiendly person is shown as stingy
(through video, for example) during the study. Moreover, they may only choose certain
points in the response continuum. For example, they may select only the end points or
the midpoint. Finally, they may give uncommon responses (Livneh & Antonak).

A further problem mentioned by Livneh and Antonak is respondent sensitization.
In this case, the participants may not have knowledge about PWDS as defined by the
author; as a result, the description of the attitudes of direct care workers towards PWDS
may be erroneous.

This study was designed to increase the understanding of DCWs towards PWDS.
However, we know very little about this population of DCWs, in terms of who they are
or where they come from. This could be seen as a limitation, but demographic

information gathered does help us to know better now what they represent in the larger

82

 

population. Also, it was difficult to find a convenient way of getting the sample; the
participants were from different group homes, and so extraneous variables may have
affected their responses. However, using different group homes provided an advantage
for this study, in that we had a wide range of DCWs’ participants. Finally, perhaps the
questions DCWs responed to were not written well and as a result this could have
resulted in some of the non significant results in his study.
Implications
DCWs help PWDS in important life skills, such as teaching them to groom

themselves, basic math and reading, cooking, how to use transportation, and how to
recognize danger and emergency situations. Negative attitudes have the potential of
adversely affecting PWDS. The findings from this study therefore have important
implications.
Practice

Educating DCWS in discrimination issues towards PWDS because of the low
moderate positive attitudes is surprising given America’s current stance on equality, and
the legislation such as the ADA.

Training need. Those whose needs related to a combination of DWC, LAD, and
HIWD were the only ones with negative attitudes. The significant differences between
their attitudes and those of the other groups may reflect the idea that those with more
work related needs are not as competent as those without many needs, and this might
have influenced attitudes. Helping DCWS work with fewer groups may help them in their

attitudes.

83

 

 

 

Pogrlraion DCWs Worked with. Those who worked with BI and those who
worked with a combination of MR and PD had negative attitudes in subscale 2. Training
may help those who work with these individuals with disability.

Knowledge. For the general attitudes, those with the greatest amount of
knowledge had the most positive attitudes, and their attitudes were more positive than
those who were either knowledgeable or not very knowledgeable. Also, in the subscales,
it is worth noting that those who were very knowledgeable had more positive attitudes E 1

than who whose who were knowledgeable in two of the subscales (i.e. subscale 2 and 3).

 

Perhaps, increasing the level of knowledge of DCWs can help with their general attitudes “‘~
as well as their attitudes in relation to pessimism.

In regards to learning, as stated above, the attitude of DCWs was low moderate
positive. Because learning is an important component in our lives, including the lives of
PWDS, and an area where many PWDS need help and/or where they have been unfairly
seen as not capable of progressing, management should make sure that DCWs’ attitudes
in this area improve from low moderate positive attitudes to a high positive. Management
can focus on helping them improve on their attitudes towards PWDS through increasing
their knowledge about disability, especially in the areas of disability and learning.
Research

T 'ning Need. There has been no research in the areas of training needs of
PWDS and how these affect their attitudes. Research in this area is needed given the fact
that DCWs have training needs with potentials of affecting their attitudes.

Contact. While there is research on contact and attitudes towards PWDS in

general, there is no research on which type of contact can affect attitudes. This study did

84

not show any relationship between type of contact and attitudes towards PWDS probably
because of the small sample size of some groups relative to other groups. Future research
can try to increase sample sizes in the groups in order to see whether type of contact can
impact attitudes towards PWDS.

Knowledge. Knowledge about disability as we see in this study is related to
attitudes towards PWDS. Researchers can replicate this study with different DCWs to see
whether they can find similar results as this study. Also, they can focus on which type of
knowledge can positively impact DCWs’ attitudes. This way we can use the appropriate
knowledge to help DCWs improve their attitudes towards PWDS.

The unexpected, non-significant difference between groups mentioned above
may be due to small sample sizes of some groups relative to other groups. Research
using larger sample sizes in these categories can shed light in this area.

Conclusions

Results regarding DCWs’ demographic and other variables’ effects on DCWs’
attitudes shows that some variable had effects while others did not. Comparison within
variables shows significant differences between and among some of groups, indicating
that some variable had more positive or negative attitudes than others, and non
significant differences in others.

Negative attitudes towards PWDS have reduced opportunities for them,
including important life goals and opportunities such as employment, health care,
education, and other areas. DCWs are definitely not immune to negative attitudes
towards PWDS, as we have seen in this study. In general, there were some DCWs with

negative attitudes and specific groups of DCWS also had negative attitudes. The positive

85

 

 

attitudes of DCWs notwithstanding, less than high positive attitudes, as was seen in the
area of learning, can negatively impact their lives. As I mentioned above, learning is
important for human progress and as a result DCWs need to have high positive attitudes
in this area.

Knowledge about disability as we see in this study is related to attitudes
towards PWDS. Those who were very knowledgeable had more positive attitudes than
whose who were not very knowledgeable. Perhaps, helping DCWs become more
knowledgeable will help in their attitudes towards PWDS. Strategies that have shown
success in changing attitudes towards PWDS in other studies may have the potential to
help DCWs improve their attitudes as they help PWDS in basic but important living
activities in life. The lives of PWDS are too important to be affected by negative attitudes

towards them.

86

 

APPENDIX A: DCWs Demographic and Other Variables

 

Demographic Questions

 

(1) Age last birthday:
(2) Gender:

[:1 M

D F

(3) Heritage:

:1 White

[:1 Black

[3 Hispanic

DOriental

 

[Other (Please specify)
(4) Highest educational level attained (Check only one):

[Some High School/GED

[:1 High School Graduate

UCollege Freshman

DCollege Sophomore

[:1 College Junior

[College Senior

uBachelor's Degree

[Bachelor's Degree +15 credits

UMaster's Degree

87

 

 

DSpecialist Degree

[Doctorate

 

APPENDIX A: DCWs Demographic and Other Variables (Cont’d)
Additional questions
1

1. How many years have you been working as a direct care worker? r.

2. What were your reasons for choosing direct care work?

 

 

3. What types of individuals do you work with (e. g. individuals with brain
injuries, developmental disabilities)? Check all that apply.
[Brain Injury
[Developmental Disability

[Mental Retardation

 

DOthers

 

4. What do you do in the group home (e. g. helping clients with hygiene, such as
bathing and dressing; teaching clients basic math; taking clients in the

community)?

 

5. Have your feelings changed over the years about the clients you work with?

 

88

APPENDIX A: DCWs Demographic and Other Variables (Cont’d)

6. What do you believe are your training needs? List as many as you can

 

7. What is your level of satisfaction in doing direct care work fiom a scale of 1 to

5, 1 representing no satisfaction and 5 represent extreme satisfaction?

 

 

 

89

APPENDIX B: Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons — Form R

 

 

Please rate your general knowledge of the conditions and life circumstances of

persons with a disability from a scale ranging from 1 to 6, 1 representing no

knowledge and 6 representing extensive knowledge

No Knowledge Extensive Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

 

 

Please rate the frequency of your contact with persons with a disability:
Very Infrequent Very Frequent
l 2 3 4 5 6

Directions: The statements presented below express opinions or ideas about
persons who are disabled. There are many differences of opinion; many persons
agree and many persons disagree with each statement. We would like to know
your opinion about them. Circle the appropriate number, fiom -3 to +3, that best
corresponds with how you feel about the statement. There are no right or wrong
answers. You should work as quickly as you can, but don't rush. There is no time
limit.

 

 

 

 

Please respond to every statement.

 

KEY
-3: I disagree very much +1: 11 agree a little
-2: I disagree pretty much +2: I agree pretty much
‘ -1: I disagree a little +3: I agree very much

I:

90

 

 

APPENDD( B: Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons — Form R (Cont’d)

---+++
321123

 

1. Children who are disabled should not be
provided with a fi'ee public education.

 

2.Persons who are disabled are not more accident
prone than are other people.

 

3.1ndividuals who are disabled are not capable of
making moral decisions.

 

4.Persons who are disabled should be prevented
from having children.

 

5.Persons who are disabled should be allowed to
live where and how they choose.

 

6.Adequate housing for persons who are disabled is

neither too expensive nor too difficult to
build.

 

7.Rehabilitation programs for persons who are
disabled are too expensive to operate.

 

8.Persons who are disabled are in many ways like
children. _

 

9.Persons who are disabled need only the proper
enviromnent and opportunity to develop and
express criminal tendencies.

 

10.Adults who are disabled should be involuntarily
committed to an institution following arrest.

 

11.Most persons who are disabled are willing to
work.

 

12.1ndividuals who are disabled are able to adjust to
life outside an institution.

 

13.Adults who are disabled should not be
prohibited from obtaining a driver’s license.
14.Persons who are disabled should live with others
who are similarly disabled.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

91

APPENDD( B: Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons - Form R (Cont’d)

15.Zoning ordinances should not discriminate against
persons who are disabled by prohibiting group
homes in residential districts.

 

16. The opportunity for gainful employment

should be provided to persons who are disabled.

17 .Children who are disabled in regular classrooms
have an adverse effect on other children.

 

 

18.Simple repetitive work is appropriate for persons
who are disabled.

 

19.Persons who are disabled show a deviant
personality profile.

 

20.Equal employment opportunities should be
available to individuals who are disabled

 

21 .Laws to prevent employers from discriminating
against persons who are disabled should be
passed.

 

22.Persons who are disabled engage in bizarre and
deviant sexual activity.

23.Workers who are disabled should receive at least
the minimum wage established for their jobs.

 

24.1ndividuals who are disabled can be expected to fit
into our competitive society.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

92

APPENDIX C: Invitation

The Attitude of Direct Care Workers towards People with Disabilities: An Exploratory
Study

I am interested in investigating the attitudes of direct care worker towards persons with
disabilities in general, and the relation between direct care workers’ attitudes towards
persons with disabilities and motivation for choosing a career (direct care work, for
example), number of years worked, level of education, and the gender and race of
direct care workers. This is a research to help benefit the rehabilitation counseling
field, managers, yourself (direct care workers), and individuals with disabilities. Your
help will be greatly appreciated.

I am inviting you to participate in this research study. Participants will be asked to
complete a short survey regarding their attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
Participation in this study should take 10 to 15 minutes of your time.

For your time, each participant will be entered into a lottery. There will be two
drawings. Participants can win $100 on the first drawing and $50 on the second. The
first drawing will take place ten days after I have distributed the questions to all the
group homes. Participants will only be included in one lottery and lottery winners will
be drawn by number. The second drawing will be two weeks after the first drawing.

For further questions please contact me at dialloab@msu.edu or 336-235-5598.

93

APPENDIX D: Information Regarding the Study

The Attitude of Direct Care Workers towards People with Disabilities: An Exploratory
Study

Before you participate in my study, it is important to understand several principles: 1)
Taking part in this study is voluntary; 2) you may or may not benefit fi'om participating
in this study. However, the findings fiom your participation may benefit your
employer, the field of rehabilitation, yourself, and individuals with disabilities; 3) you
can withdraw at anytime you choose to; 4) you do not have to answer to all questions;
5) you can ask questions now, when you are responding, and after you have responded.
In other words, you can ask questions at any time. Please feel free to contact me if you
have questions or concerns about the research; 6) you have about 35 survey questions
to answer to on paper“, 7) the study should take about 10 to 15 minutes.

Research Study:

We know very little about the attitude of direct care attitudes towards persons with
disabilities because research is scant in this area. Direct care workers play an important
part in the lives of persons with disability and therefore it is important that we know
the attitudes of direct care workers towards persons with disabilities. The purpose of
this research study is to investigate the attitudes of direct care workers towards
individuals with disabilities. Your participation will help us investigate the attitudes of
direct care workers’ towards person with disabilities in general, and the relation
between direct care workers’ attitudes towards person with disabilities and motivation
for choosing a career (direct care work, for example), number of years worked, level of
education, and the gender and race of direct care workers.

You must be 18 years old in order to take part in this study. Participants are asked to
answer to some questions regarding their attitudes towards persons with disabilities.
Participants will be entered into two separate lotteries in which they can win $100 in
the first lottery and $50 in the second lottery. After completing the questionnaire,
participants are asked to submit their responses to me.

The first drawing, in which a single number will be drawn for a $100 prize, will take
place ten days after I have distributed the questions to all the group homes. The second
drawing, in which a single number will be drawn for $50 prize, will take placed two
weeks after the first drawing or after I get 96 participants. All participants that have
completed the study will be placed into the lottery. However, only those who complete
the study in time will be eligible for the first lottery. Participants’ numbers will be put
in a box and one of the secretaries for the rehabilitation counseling program will draw a

94

 

 

 

APPENDIX D: Information Regarding the Study (Cont’d)

single number from the box. The winners will be notified by their managers and
arrangement will be made at that time to deliver their prizes.

Participants will only be included in one lottery and lottery winners will be drawn by
number. Names will not be associated with numbers. Please retain number for
redeeming you prize if you win.

 

Risk:

There are no anticipated risks for participating in this study. However, some
participants might experience an emotional reaction regarding information about
persons with disabilities.

7

Benefits:

The results of this study have the potential of extending existing knowledge in terms of
the attitudes of direct care workers towards persons with disabilities in the
rehabilitation literature. More specifically, the rehabilitation counseling field can be
informed about direct care workers’ educational level, motivation for choosing direct
care work, experience working with persons with disabilities, the gender and race of
direct care workers, and the relationships of these factors with direct care workers’
attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Administrators and managers can use this
knowledge in employing the best employees.

 

There are also implications for the practice of rehabilitation professionals if direct care
workers and the specific groups have negative attitudes towards persons with
disabilities. Understanding the attitudes of direct care workers towards persons with
disabilities can better help rehabilitation professionals to train direct care workers and
to help them provide the best service with positive attitudes towards persons with
disabilities.

Likewise, Rehabilitation professionals can help direct care workers with negative
attitudes to benefit fiom attitudinal training, which ultimately will benefit persons with
disabilities.

 

Confidentiality:

Participants are asked to provide demographic variables (age, race, sex). NO other
personally identifying information will be requested. Participants are asked not to
provide their names or the names of the group homes they work. I will shuffle the
participants’ responses after the participants hand them to me. Also, I will shuffle the
group homes’ responses so that no one identifies which responses belong to a specific
group home. The shuffling of responses within and between group homes will make it
high unlikely for me or my advisor or the IRB to identify people. However, I will still
exclude the participants I or my advisor knows. I doubt if my advisor knows the direct
care workers in the group homes. However, I will ask him if he knows certain people

95

APPENDIX D: Information Regarding the Study (Cont’d)

who work in the group homes as direct care workers. If he does, I will exclude the
participants.

No one will see the responses except me, my professor who is overseeing the study and
the IRB (if the IRB audits me). I will exclude the participants who I know. I will put
the copies (answers) in a bag (with a lock).Also, the information will be stored in a
computer password file and it will be destroyed three years following closure of my
IRB protocol. The participants’ raffle numbers will not be connected with individual
data.

As soon as I receive responses, I will put them in a locked bag, and I will be the only
one to have the key to the bag and the password to the research file (with the
responses). Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowed by
law.

Voluntary Participation/Withdrawal

Your participation in this study is voluntary. You may decide not to participate in this
study. If you do participate, you may freely withdraw fi'om the study at any time. You
may also refuse to

answer any particular questions.

Questions
If you have concerns or questions about the study, such as scientific issues, how to do
any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the study investigators:

Abdoulaye Diallo

3312 Trappers Cove, Apt. 1B
Lansing, MI, 48910
336-235-5598
dialloab@msu.edu

Michael J. Leahy

Michigan State University; Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and
Special Education

‘463 Erickson Hall

517-43 2-0605

leahvm@msu.edu

Please use the following statement for the HRPP contact information...

If you have any questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research
participant, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact,
anonymously if you wish, the MSU Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-
2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 202 Olds Hall,
MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

96

APPENDIX D: lnforrnation Regarding the Study (Cont’d)

You indicated your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
survey.

You indicated your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
survey.

97

 

APPENDIX E
Subscale 1 Questions

1.Persons who are disabled are not more accident prone than are
other people.

2.Persons who are disabled should be allowed to live where and
how they choose.

3.Adequate housing for persons who are disabled is neither too
expensive nor too difficult to build.

4.Most persons who are disabled are willing to work.

5.1ndividuals who are disabled are able to adjust to life outside
an institution.

6.Adults who are disabled should not be prohibited from Obtaining a driver’s license.

7.Zoning ordinances should not discriminate against persons who
are disabled by prohibiting group homes in residential districts.

8.The opportunity for gainful employment should be provided to persons who are
disabled.

9.Equal employment opportunities should be available to
individuals who are disabled. .

10.Workers who are disabled should receive at least the minimum
wage established for their jobs.

11.1ndividuals who are disabled can be expected to fit into our
competitive society.

98

APPENDIX F

Subscale 2 Questions

1.Rehabilitation programs for persons who are disabled are too
expensive to operate.

2.Persons who are disabled need only the proper environment and
opportunity to develop and express criminal tendencies.

3.Adults who are disabled should be involuntarily committed to
an institution following arrest.

4.Persons who are disabled should live with others who are similarly disabled.

5.Children who are disabled in regular classrooms have an
adverse effect on other children.

6.Simple repetitive work is appropriate for persons who are
disabled.

7.Laws to prevent employers from discriminating against person
who are disabled should be passed.

99

APPENDIX G

Subscale 3 Questions

1. Children who are disabled should not be provided with a free
public education.

2.1ndividuals who are disabled are not capable of making moral
decisions.

3.Persons who are disabled should be prevented fi'om having
children.

4.Persons who are disabled are in many ways like children.
5.Persons who are disabled Show a deviant personality profile.

6.Persons who are disabled engage in bizarre and deviant sexual
activity.

100

REFERENCES

Andrew, P. & Crewe, N. (2007). Objective self awareness and stigma: Implications for
persons with visual disabilities. In The Psychological and Social Impact of
Illness and Disability. pp. 145-155. New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing.

Angharad, B. (2009). Challenging disabling attitudes, building an
inclusive society. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 30, 3,
317 — 329.

Antonak, R. E. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the Scale of
Attitudes toward Disabled Persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation

Counseling, 13,
22 —29.

Antonak, R. F. (1985). Construct validation of the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled
Persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 16(1), 7-10, 48.

Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward people
with disabilities: Methods. psvchometrics. and scafi. Springfield, IL: C C
Thomas.

Ary, D., Jacob, L. C., & Razavieh, A. (1990). Introduction to education in research.
New York: Harcourt Brace College Publisher.

Ajzen, K. & F ishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predictive social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Benharn, P. K. (1988). Attitude of occupational therapy personnel towards persons
with disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapist. Vol. 42, 5,
305-31 1.

Bishop, M. (2001). Motivation to become a rehabilitation counselor with the state-
federal vocational rehabilitation program: Implication for rehabilitation
administrators. Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 25, 145-150.

Blanck, P. D. (1996). Employment study of the American with Disability Acts.
Behavioral Science and the Law, 14, 5 — 27.

Bowman, J. (1987).Attitudes towards disabled persons: Social distance and work
competence. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, 41 — 43.

Brostrand, H. L. (2006). Tilting at Windmills: Changing attitudes towards people with
disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 72, 1, 4 — 9.

Bush, G. W. (2001). Fulfilling Anerica’s promise to American with disabilities.

101

Retrieved on April 23, 2008.
www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.htrnl
Byrd, E. K., Byrd, P. D., and Emener, W. G. (1977). Student, Counselors, and
Employer Perceptions of Employability of Severely Retarded. Rehabilitation
Literature, 38(2), 42-44.

Chan, C. C. H., Lee, M. C., Yuen, H. K., & Chan, F. (2002). Attitudes towards people
with disabilities between Chinese rehabilitation and business students.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 4 7, 324 — 338.

Chan, S. L., Tsang, H., Chan, F. & Corrigan, P. W. (2006). Chinese and American
perspectives on Stigma. Rehabilitation Education, 4, 269 — 279.

Chandrashekas, R. & Benshoff, J. J. (2007). Increasing quality of life and awareness of
deficits in persons with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73, 2,
50-56.

Chubon, R. (1992). Attitudes towards disabilities. Rehabilitation Education, 6, 301-412

Clarke, N. E. & Crewe, N. M. (2000). Stakeholder attitudes towards ADA Title 1:
Develpoment of an indirect measurement method. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 43(2), 58-65.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York:
Academic Press.

Cole, J. W. & Grizzle, J. E. (1966). Application of multivariate analysis of variance to
repeated measures experiments.

Conover, C. J ., Arno, R, Weaver, M., & Ettner, S. L. (2005). Income and employment
of people living with combined HIV/AIDS, chronic mental illness, and
substance abuse disorder. J Ment Health Policy Econ, 9(2), 71-86.

Corrigan, P. W. (2006). Erase the stigma. Rehabilitation Education, 20(4), 225-234.

Dickinson, G. L. (1961). Greek view of life. Ney York: Collier Books.

Eberly, C., Eberly, B. and Wright, (1981). Mental health professionals’ attitudes
towards physically handicapped groups in attributionally ambiguous and
nonarnbiguous
situations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28(3), 276-278.

Findler, L., Vilchinsky, N. & Werner, S. (2007). The multidimensional attitudes scale

towards persons with disabilities (MAS). Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
50, 3, 166 — 176.

102

Folsom-Meek, S. L., Nearing, R. J ., Groteluschen, W. & Krarnpf, H. (1999). Effect of
academic major, gender, and hand-on experience on attitudes of pre-service
professionals. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 16, 389 — 402.

Garske, G. G. (1996). Self-report levels of job satisfaction of vocational rehabilitation
professionals: Journal of Rehabilitation Administration, 19, 215-223.

Garske, G. G. (1999). Rehabilitation counselors job satisfaction. Journal of
Rehabilitation Administration, 23, 21-29.

Glad, J. (2007). Recent Books on Jewish Eugenics. Mankind Quarterly, 48, 2, 209 ——
222.

Gonzalez, M. L. (2009). Getting to know reality and breaking stereotypes.
Disability and Society, 24, 4, 447 — 459.

Gorden, E. D., Minnes, P. M., & Holden, R. R. (1990). The structure of attitudes
towards persons with a disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 35 ,(2), 79-90.

Guyatt, G. H. et. al. (2002). Method to explain the clinical significance of health
status measure. Mayo Clinic Proceeding, 77, 371 — 383.

Greenwood & Johnson (19870. Employers’ perspective on workers with disabilities.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, 37 — 40.

Hergenrather, K. & Rhodes, S. (2007). Exploring undergraduate student attitudes
towards persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation counseling Bulletin, 50, 2,
66-73.

Huitt, K., & Elston, R. R. (1991). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities expressed
by professional counselors. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 42-
43.

Hunt, C.S. & Hunt, B. (2004). Changing attitudes towards people with disabilities:
Experiencing with an educational intervention. Journal of Managerial Issues,
16(2), 266 — 280.

Kaplan, S. K., and Thomas, K. R. (1981). Rehabilitation Counseling Student
Perceptions
of Obese Clients. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 106-109.

Kennedy, J., & Olney, M. (2001). Job discrimination in the post ADA era: Estimates

from the 1994 and 1995 National Interview Survey. Rehabilitation Counseling
Bulletin, 45, 24-31.

103

Kosciulek, J. F. (1999a). The consumer-directed theory of empowerment.
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 42(3), 196-213.

Kosciulek, J. F . (2000). Implication of consumer direction for disability policy
development and rehabilitation service delivery. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 11(2), 82-89.

Kottler, J. A. & Brown, R. W. (1992). Introduction to therapeutic counseling.
Brooki/Cole Publishing Company. Pacific Grove, California.

Lee, T. & Rodda, M. (1994). Modification of attitudes towards people with disabilities.
Canadian Journal of Rehabilitation, 7, 229 —- 238.

Leahy, M. (2004). Qualified Provider. In Riggar & Maki. Handbook of Rehabilitation
Counseling. New York, NY: Springer Publisher Company. Ppl42-158.

Leanard, T. C. (2009). Origins of the myth of social Darwinism. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 71, 1, 8 — 45.

Livneh, H. (2001). Psychosocial adaptation to chronic illness and disability: A
conceptual framework. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44, 151-160.

Livneh, H. & Antonak, R. (1994). Indirect methods to measure attitudes towards
persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Education, 8 (2), 104-108.

McMahon, B. T., Roessler, R., Rumrill, P. D., Hurley, J ., West, S. L.,
Chan, F. & Carlson, L. (2008). Hiring discrimination against
people with disabilities. Journal of Occupational rehabilitation, 18,
2, 122 — 132.

Noe, R.A. (2002). Employee training & development (2nd ed). New York: McGraw-
Hillaki, 200.

Olkin, R. (1999). What Psychotherapist Should Know About Disability. The Guilford
Press: New York.

Palmer, G.., Redinius, P.L., and Tervo, RC. (2000). An Examination of Attitudes
Towards Disabilities Among College Students. Journal of Rural Community
Psychology, 3(1), 52 - 59.

Parkinson, G. (2006). Counsellors’ attitudes towards Disability Equality Training
(DET). British Journal of Guidance & Counseling, 34(1), 93-105.

Phenrister, A. A. & Crewe, N. (2004). Objective self-awareness and stigma. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 7(2), 33-35.

104

Rice, D. M., Rosen, M, and Macmann, G. M. (1991). Attitudes of direct care workers
at a residential facility. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities,
3(1), 59-67.

Riggar, T.F. & Maki, DR. (2004). Handbook of Rehabilitation Counseling. New York.

Rubin, S.E. & Roessler, R.T (2001). Foundations of the vocational rehabilitation
process. Austin: Pro-ed.
Satcher, J. & Dooley-Dickey, K. (1992). Attitudes of human-resources management

students toward persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
35(4), 248-252.

Schur, L., Kruse, D., & Blanck, P. (2005). Corporate culture and the employment of
people with disabilities. Behavioral Science and the Law, 23, 3 — 20.

Schloss, P.J. & Soda, S.L. (1989). Employer’s attitudes concerning training time and
on the job success for the mentally handicapped. Vocational Evaluation and
Work Adjustment Bulletin, 6(5), 18 - 32.

Schofield, L. F., and Kunce, J. (1971). Clients disability and Counselor behavior.
Rehabilitation Bulletin, 1 58- 1 65.

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J ., and Blanck, P. (2009). Is disabling in all
workplaces? Industralations, 48, 3, 381 — 410.

Schwochau, S. & Blanck, P. (2003). Does the ADA disabled the disabled? Industrial
Relations, 47, 67 — 77.

Siller, J (1984). Intrapsychic Aspects of Attitudes toWards Persons with Disabilities. In
Attitudes towards Persons with Disabilities. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.

Siller, J. (1963). Reaction to Physical disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 7,
1 2-1 6.

Siller, J. (1976). In Attitudes towards person with disability. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 29, 3, 131-145.

Smart, J. (2001). Disability and Society , and the individual. An Aspen Publication
Inc. Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Spengler, P. M., Strohmer, D. C., and Prout, H. T. (1990). Testing the robustness of the

diagnostic overshadowing bias. American Journal of Mental retardation,
95(2), 204-214.

105

Stapleton, C. S., O’Day, B., Livermore, G. A., & Imparato, A. J. (2005). Dismantling
the poverty trap. Rehabilitation Research and Training Center for Economic
Research on Employment Policy for Persons with Disabilities, Coenell
University, Ithace. NY. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/edicollect/1 24.

Strohmer, D. C., Grand, S. A., & Purcell, M. J. (1984). Attitudes towards persons with

a disability: an examination of demographic factors, social context, and specific
disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 29, 3, 131-145.

Szyrnanski E. M. & Parker, M. P. (1996). Work and disability. In Szyrnanski E. M. &
Parker, M.P., Worka and Dissability. Texas: Pro-ed. .pp 1-7.

Triandis, H.C. (1994) In. Livneh, H. & Antonak, R. Indirect methods to measure
attitudes towards persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Education, 8( 2), 104-108.

Uppal, S. (2005). Disability, workplace characteristics, and job
satisfaction. International Journal of Manpower, 26, 4, 336 — 349.

Uppal, S. (1996). Accommodating employees with disabilities. Journal of
managerial issues, 3, 1, 78 — 92.

Wong, D. W., Chan, F., Cardoso, E. S., Lam, C. S., and Miller, S. M. (2004). Students
Attitudes Towards People with Disabilities in Three Social Contexts. Journal
of Rehabilitation Counseling Vol. 47(4), 194-204.

Wright, N. G. (1980). Total rehabilitation. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Yuker, H. E. (1983). The lack of stable order preference for attitudes. Rehabilitation

106