AWEFUDES G? SPECEAL EQLECA?Q§¢S ?Q¥WA[§4§ THE HYSECALLY H‘QNDEQAWED AME TQWAEEQ EQQCA‘E’EQN Thain be {'[m Dogma 0? Ecfi. D. MCHRGAN STATE UNWERSETY John Buckingham Made: 1967' MICHIG I I//I/////I/v/I‘i/Wiflmifl/iifl’i/fl/l/Wfihm ' Mi 3 1293 01591 4322 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled Attitudes Of Special Educators Toward The Physically Handicapped And Toward Education presented by John Buckingham Mader has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed D degree inJlfiElfinLflT-‘Y 811d Special Education ’ I . .1 r r — «- o - , . Ix '7’ . f Majgrfprofessor .l‘ (\ xfi' ~4 . ., I ‘, I , Date j -» 6- '7 0-169 ABS '1‘ EXCT . I" a OF SPECIAL 1".‘L'Ch'l‘0f‘5 fiMi‘Jx :W’ .181in mumpm m: u w_r:.t._m Q“ i-. by John Bucking!!!" «445$? ' . Wm focus of "he {near-w, ; 1.‘i"-.."-: w . 'Ottttudas of nub-groups if epec>:2 we- 3:.“ 6 ~-6 and tower: "tithe: ion. 3 sec. :4“, :r~.lb OOIIOction of data an spatiaj adu:atn.a “ mt it could be infrunuxa 5 in hrecr ;1:‘QICI1 study being CCn(\(ted uh 81* I. Jordan, C(W1.tzJL 31 dun“ 1'. H.,.'\ 4-.“ tty. m theoretical Iravawork "f H ' b'u'-‘ 1 jar".- ‘ t with the social-pay"? , fits“ .- r ~ 1 Dad by Wright 2:3. Hwy»: 1: . a- t. - ‘&,c .. m u'abilitk' v11: : ,' 1. fig Y‘ativjfl ‘I ‘ '-1'.\ *WSflu Ittitudea, '13 Le 90’ 8V;e.;7..| ‘,. \’ ‘ ~ ' ' ~. - . v ~, ‘4 x - “net Hith ‘-?'.z m':':.’1r>fn-( _ . ‘ a. .. . _. . k - in this contex' Ive , e , ,. , ¥., _‘ . o! Ipecia‘t u um: (um 12). ' 1 » -v'.4'h.j "t; «:5 #) “not; rat). or they! ,. can AT’I' tvu va t = : ,- _-y, 2 ml postulatwi oz; unratlc- v-x'sulx‘.‘ '. '1_ -- .- Wrens.“ e at: itudes toward 051;'_‘v|11r, .. ‘2 . 2. u " -‘mw-a ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS TOWARD THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED AND TOWARD EDUCATION by John Buckingham Mader The primary focus of the present study was an evaluation of the attitudes of sub-groups of special educators toward the handicapped and toward education. A secondary purpose was the collection of data on special educators in such a manner that it could be incorporated in a larger cross- cultural study being conducted under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University. The theoretical framework of the study is generally consistent with the social-psychological orientation expressed by Wright and Meyerson as far as attitudes toward physical disability are concerned. Relationships existing among attitudes, values, selected demographic variables, and contact with the handicapped and with education are explored in this context. The assumption was made that sub-sets of special educators would view the handicapped from an asset rather than a comparative value orientation and that this postulated orientation would generalize to favorable progressive attitudes toward education as well as ' .'—.‘~ ‘—————0 JOHN BUCKINGHAM MADER favorable attitudes toward change orientation as measured by the indicees of the study. . The Attitudes Toward Education Scale, developed by Kerlinger;was used to measure both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale,developed by Yuker and associatea,was utilized to measure attitudes of the respondents toward the handicapped. Both the education scales and the measure of attitudes toward disabled persons were modified with a Likert-type intensity ' statement allowing each respondent to indicate how strongly (i.e., sure) he felt about his answer to the content statements of the two scales. Asset and comparative value orientations were measured by three sub—scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values developed by Gordon. The Benevolence sub-scale was utilized as a measure for asset value orientation while the Leadership and Recognition sub-scales were used to measure a comparative value orientation. 318 special educators representing 7 areas of exceptionality responded to five questionnaires requiring an administration time of approximately one hour. The sub-groups were as follows: Educable mentally handicapped (EMH). .vv- -_ JOHN BUCKINGHAM MADER trainable mentally handicapped (TMH). hearing handicapped (DEB). visually handicapped (BPS). speech handicapped (s), visiting teachers (VT), and diagnosticians (D). Data from the sub-groups of special educators was analyzed utilizing two-way analysis of variance statistics. The program was designed for the management of unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. Zero—order as well as-partial and multiple correlations were also used.) Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. as extended for unequal replications was used to investigate the extent to which a particular sub-group mean contributed to the total variance represented by the §_test. Some findings of general interest were the following: When the attitudes of sub-groups of special educators toward the handicapped were compared by sex and by group no significant results were obtained. Comparison of the Benevolence and Recognition values held by the sub-sets of special educators revealed no significant differences when analysis was made by group and by sex. The Leadership values held by the (D) group was significantly higher than those held by the (BPS) and (EMH) groups. When scores representing each of these values were .- w‘m" JOHN BUCKINGHAM MADER compared with scores of other groups reported by Gordon it was concluded that special educators are more benevolent and hold Leadership values (a comparative orientation) in less esteem than do non—special educators. The results also indicated that when the total special education group was compared by sex the females held higher Benevolence values than the males. When scores indicating attitudes toward traditional education were compared by sex for the total group no significant differences were revealed. There were, however, significant group differences with classroom teachers of the handicapped (EMH, DHH, BPS) holding significantly greater traditional orientations than the itinerant groups (S, D). While there were neither significant group or sex differences among the scores on measures of progressive attitudes toward education it was noted that all itinerant special educators scored'higher on these measures than did the classroom teachers of the handicapped. 1.2? surname or steam awca'ross man :6” mucus! nasnzcarpsn m man swarms 3! John Buckingham Nader A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION ': Department of Elementary and Special Education ";‘ College of Education 1967 I ..~ ,“ifftr I ken—4531.“. ~I ". ,_.{-'C «1.514 . . - _ H _. . )1 . A ( -‘. nut-377J'1v ' 'l, -'l 1‘ ' ' ‘ 'ysen tur- .'\ - ‘ ~ “ '1‘ CLINIC. a 7 a. a: ‘ UL:- as . . ._ , €931: ‘. . - A. h. . ‘l .‘; ‘ Xc Utf‘t'; . ( a... “‘4‘- PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by Idveral investigators as an example of the concurrent-- replicative model of cross cultural research. A common use of instrumentation, theoretical material. as well as technical. and analyses procedures was both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many respects -although the data were different in each study as well as certain design. procedural. and analyses approaches. The specific studies are discussed more fully in the review of literature chapter in each of the individual investigations. ii PM . 6 ‘-h 7 a“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Appreciation for guidance and support is extended to Dr. John B. Jordan, chairman of my advisory committee. Without Dr. Jordan's counsel and encouragement this thesis would not have been possible. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Fredrick Vescaloni, Dr. William Durr, and Dr. Charles Pedrey who served on the advisory committee and gave encouragement by accepting the basic research design which has to be considered an exploratory project. To Miss Jeannette East who prepared this manuscript for publication and the members of the administrative and teaching staff of the University Hospital Schools in Ann Arbor, Michigan I extend a sincere thank you. My undertaking of this project placed additional duties and responsibilities on their shoulders which they accepted without complaint and in a supportive spirit. To my wife Patricia and to my children Kathleen, Kelleen, Kim, Christopher, and Craig I owe the greatest debt. A task of this magnitude could not have been undertaken without their unselfish support and encouragement. L- PREFACE TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TAmS . O I O I O O O I LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Nature of the Problem . . . Statement of the Problem . . Definition of Terms . . . . II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH III. Attitudinal Studies . . . . Attitudes Held by Peers . . . Attitudes Held by Adults . . Attitudes of Parents . . . . Attitudes Held by Teachers . . General Attitudinal Studies . Theoretical Framework—Attitudes Disability . . . . . Theoretical Framework-Attitudes Education . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Research Population . . . . General Considerations . . Teachers of the Educable Retarded Teachers of the Trainable Retarded Visiting Teachers . . . . Diagnosticians . . . . Teachers of the Visually Handicapped Teachers of the Auditorialy Handicapped Speech Correctionists . . . Selection of Variables . . . iv Toward Toward e Page ii h-ooa 18 19 22 24 28 32 37 41 48 48 50 50 51 52 S3 54 54 \ Chapter Attitudes Toward Physical Disability . Attitudes Toward Education . . . . Interpersonal Values . . . . . . Personal Contact Variables . . Preferences for Personal Relationships Institutional Satisfaction . . . . Change Orientation . . . . . . . Religiosity . . . . . . . . Demographic Variables . . . . . . Statistical Procedures Descriptive Data . . . . Scale and Intensity Analysis . . . Mean Differences Analyses . . . Relational and/or Predictive Analyses Major Research Hypothesis Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores . . . Hypotheses Related to Attitude-Value Interactions . . . . Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Those Working Directly with Disabled Persons . . . . . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . . Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores by Special Education Groups and Sex . . . . . . Summary of Descriptire Data in Tables 2— 3 . . . . . . . . Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differences, and Correlational Analysis . . . . . . . H-la . . . . . . . . . . . H-lb . . . . . . . . . . . H—Za . . . . . . . . . . . H—Zb . . . . . . . . . . . H-3a . . . . . . . . . . . H-3b . . . . . . . . . . . H-4a . . . . . . . . . . . H—4b . . . . . . . . . . . H-Sa . . . . . . . . . . . H-Sb . . . . . . . . . . . Page 55 56 58 59 6O 61 62 63 63 65 65 67 68 71 72 74 77 80 84 85 85 86 90 91 92 93 95 95 97 97 Chapter H-SC . . . . . . . . . . . H—6a . . . . . . . . . . . H—6b . . . . . . . . . Summary of Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward the Handicapped and Values by Sex and Special Education Group . . . Summary of Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes Toward Education and Values by Sex and Special Education Group . . . . . . H17 . . . . . . . . . . . H-8 . . . . . . . . . . . H-9 . . . . . . . . . . . H-lO . . . . . . . . . . . H-ll . . . . . . . . . . . Differences in Mean Scores on the Value Sub-Scales by Special Education Group and sex 0 s O o I e I o s V. DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES Part I: Part II: Summary of the Theoretical and Part III: Methodological Issues . . . Summary of Theory . . . . . . Summary of Hypotheses Construction . Summary of Research Instruments . . Summary of the Sample . . . . . Summary of Statistical Procedures . Recommendations Relating to the Instruments . . . . . . . . Recommendations Relating to Sample Selection . . . . . . . . Recommendations Relating to Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . Recommendations for Future Research ’ADDENDUM TO REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Research Hypotheses Recommendations and Implications Page 99 100 100 102 102 107 107 112 112 117 120 126 157 157 159 160 162 163 164 154 165 167 167 170 214 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Distribution of Respondents According to Sex and Area of Exceptionality . . . . 79 Comparison of Mean Differences, Standard Deviations, and 2 Statistics in Respect to Three Demographic Variables for Special Education Personnel . . . . . 81 Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to Means of Education Scores for Special Education Personnel . . . . . . . 83 Interpretation of Education Scores in Terms of Actual Educational Attainment . . . 84 Means, Standard Deviations, and E Statistic Comparing High and Low Frequency of Contact with Disabled Persons with Intensity Scores on the ATDP Scale . . 86 Means, Standard Deviations, and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Frequency of Contact with Education with Intensity Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-Toward- Education Scale . . . . . . . . . 87 Means. Standard Deviations. and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Frequency of Contact with Education with Intensity Scores on the Traditionsl-Attitude-Toward- Education Scale . . . . . . . . .88 Zero-order Correlations Between Amount of Contact with Disabled Persons and Intensity Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Disabled— Persons Scales . . . . . . . . .89 vii Table 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. 16. Page Multiple Correlations for Combined Contact Variables with Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons and Toward Education (Progressive and Traditional) . . . . . . . . 9O Partial Correlations Between Attitude-Toward- Handicapped-Persons and Attitudes Toward Education (Both Progressive and Traditional) as related to contact Variables . . . . . . . . . . 92 Means, Standard Deviations, and g statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Leadership Value and Attitudes-Toward-Disabled-Persons Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Means, Standard Deviations, and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Leadership Value and Progressive-Attitude- Toward—Education Scores. . . . . . 94 Means, Standard Deviations, and g_Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Leader- ship Value and Traditional-Attitude- Toward-Education Scores. . . . . . 94 Means, Standard Deviations, and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Recognition Value and Score on tho Attitude-Toward-Disabled-Person Scale . 95 Means, Standard Deviations, and g_statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Recognition Value and Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Education Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Means, Standard Deviations, and £_Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Recognition Value and Scores on the Traditional-Attitude-Toward-Education Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . 96 viii Table 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Means, Standard Deviation, and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Benevolence Value and Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Disabled-Persons Scale . 97 Means, Standard Deviations and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Benevolence Value and Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-Toward-Education Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Means, Standard Deviations, and g Statistic Comparing High and Low Scores on Benevolence Value and Scores on the Traditional-Attitude-Toward-Education Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Means, Standard Deviations, and §_Statistic for Benevolence Value Scores, Attitude- Toward-Disabled-Persons Scores, and Progressive-Attitude-Toward Education Scores for Males and Females . . . . 99 Multiple Correlations of Change Orientation Variables with Attitude-Toward-Disabled— Persons and Toward Education (Progressive and Traditional) . . . . . . . . 100 Partial Correlations Between Attitudes-Toward- Disabled-Persons and Attitudes Toward Education (Both Progressive and Traditional) as related to Change Orientation Variables. . . . . . . 101 Zero-order Correlations Between Attitude- Toward-Disabled-Persons Scale (Content) and the Gordon Value Scale . . . . . 103 ix Table 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Page Zero-order Correlations Between Attitudes- Toward-Education (Content) and the Gordon value Scale . . . . . . . 104 Means, Standard Deviations and g Statistic Comparing Scores on the Attitude-Toward— Disabled-Persons Scale for all Special Education Groups. . . . . . . . 108 Means, standard Deviations and §_Statistics for Benevolence Value Scores for all Special Education Groups . . . . . 109 Means, Standard Deviations and 2 Statistics for Recognition Value Scores for all Special Education Groups . . . . . 110 Means, Standard Deviations and E Statistics for Leadership Value Scores for all Special Education Groups . . . . . 111 Means, Standard Deviations and §_Statistics for Progressive-Attitudes—Toward- Education Scores for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 113 Means, Standard Deviations and E Statistics for Traditional-Attitudes-Toward-Education Scores for all Special Education Groups 114 Means, Standard Deviations\and g Statistics for Health Practice Responses for all Special Education Groups . . . . . 115 Means, Standard Deviations and g Statistics for Child Rearing Practice Responses for all Special Education Groups. . . . 116 Means, Standard Deviations and 3 Statistics for Birth Control Responses for all Special Education Groups . . . . . 118 X Page Means, Standard Deviations and §_Statistics Related to Frequency of Contact with the Mentally Retarded for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . 119 Means, Standard Deviations, and §_Statistic Related to Frequency of Contact with the Emotionally Disturbed for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . 121 Means, Standard Deviations, and §.Statistics for Support Value for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . 122 Means. Standard Deviations, and g.Statistics for Conformity Value for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . 123 Means, Standard Deviations, and 2 Statistics for Independence Value for all Special Education Groups . . . . . . . 124 xi LIST OF APPENDICES Page Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . 216 Definitions of Disabling Conditions. 216 Attitudes Toward Education . . . 218 Survey of Interpersonal Values . . 227 Personal Questionnaire . . . . . 229 Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 248 Personal Questionnaire: HP . . ‘. 256 Variables, Administration Procedures, Code ~ Book and Code Forms . . . . . . . 263 Basic Variables of the Study . . . 264 Administrative Procedures . . . . 270 Code Book . . . m. . . . . . 275 Data Transcription Sheet . . . . 312 sec {and 1i mime—chm“; print;- Out Code . . . . . . . . . 314 xii . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION An increased emphasis in the need for special education and rehabilitation personnel over the past fifteen years is clearly in evidence (Garrison and Force, 1965, p. 6). Local school districts as well as county and intermediate educational units are levying additional millage to permit increased service to handicapped youth (Micnigan Association County Special Education Administrators, 1965). Medical technology is enabling children to survive who in the past would have died in infancy (Cruickshank and Johnson, 1958, p. 18). It is essential that more special educators be trained to staff the increasing number of programs and services. Nature of the Problem To date the emphasis seems to have been on encouraging students to consider and enter the area of special education and rehabilitation with little regard for the selection process. A stated desire and the ability to meet the academic requirements seem to be the greatest selective factors. Training programs have provided opportunities for observation, practice teaching, and internships which have enabled evaluation and elimination of individuals who 1 appear unsuited for work with the handicapped but these judgments have of necessity been highly subjective and open to question. The National Council for Exceptional Children has adopted and published a comprehensive study of recommended training standards for special education personnel. Requirements for teachers in each disability area are presented as are those for administrators and supervisors. Analysis of the recommendations indicate that major emphasis in the selection and training of special education personnel is on specific course requirements, academic adequacy, and critical observations of the student‘s performance while i meeting the internship and practice teaching requirements (The National Council for Exceptional Children 1965). It would appear that in a society where the attitudes of individuals play an important part in the success or failure of our handicapped citizens, some evaluation of the attitudes of special educators toward the handicapped may be of value. A review of the literature reveals many studies emphasizing the attitudes of society toward one handicapped group or another, the attitudes of general educators toward the handicapped, and those directed toward the investigation v—‘-m- W _ of parents attitudes toward children with specific handicapping conditions.1 To date little interest has been demonstrated in the attitudes of special educators with varying professional training toward the handicapped. In light of the increased demand for teachers of the handicapped and the continued reliance of our universities on subjective evaluations in terms of teacher selection and training, such investigation would seem to be of value. The identification and modification of attitudes as they relate to the handicapped should be of increasing concern to educators. Emphasis on their identification is sought not only in our country but throughout the world. Berg (1965), has noted that while "...we know something of attitudes and how to measure them...we must discover how to change them efficiently (p. 203). A major concern of the Second International Seminar on Special Education held in Nyborg, Denmark in July, 1963 was for broader communication about attitudes and programs among workers in special education and rehabilitation throughout Europe and Latin America. In addition, the conference emphasized a need 1These studies are reviewed in Chapter II r—_———_ for the acquisition of normative data about the attitudes of various interest groups toward special education and rehabilitation. Educators in the United States have long been aware of the importance of the attitudes held by teachers of the handicapped children they seek to serve. The Division on Child Development of the Commission on Teacher Education (1945), has presented a list of the major deterrents to learning and adjustment which occur between teachers and their pupils. Among its observations are the following: (a) children are often required to learn things and are expected to behave in ways inappropriate to their level of development, (b) full acceptance of and respect for each child as a person is not always maintained by the teachers, and relationships among children that imply acceptance of each other are not always fostered, (c) reward and punishment are usually meted out to children in terms of the significance of school policies or teachers' purposes, and the behavior of children is often controlled by means of humiliation. Cain (1949), responding to this report states, "Such a report implies, if these indictments be true in terms of children in general, that the problems are increased for the handicapped child. Because of his disability he will often lack normal outlets for his energies and acquire greater dependence on others in terms of making decisions" (p. 276). It appears that teachers of the handicapped must not only be aware of the ego status of the children they serve but must have or develop attitudes that will allow the handicapped to develop to his maximum potential. If this is true. it appears that in teacher selection some evaluation of the existing attitudes of the prospective teacher should be attempted. It does not seem sufficient to imply that any individual who is certified and approved as a special educator possesses the attitudes required to best meet the needs of our handicapped children and youth. Basic to the development of a better method for the measurement of attitudes is a determination of the attitudes currently held by special education personnel serving as teachers and consultants to the handicapped. Studies designed to determine the attitudes of special educators toward the handicapped are limited. As has been indicated earlier, the major concern of the research group of the Second International Seminar on Special Education at Nyborg, Denmark, in July, 1963 was for the acquisition of normative data relative to the attitudes of various interest 6 groups toward special education and rehabilitation. For these reasons the primary focus of this study will be the utilization of an established research design which will not only allow an analysis of similarities and differences in attitudes held by special educators toward the handicapped but will also provide insights into the attitudes to these specialists toward the educational process. The design has the added advantage of allowing the data to be utilized in a series of studies currently being conducted in the College of Education, Michigan State University. These studies are directed at the development of a rationale and technique for cross-national comparisons that will enable concept equivalence.1 Friesen (1966), who has utilized the design states that "...an important guideline for conducting this kind of research should involve a comprehensive cross-national research study aimed at uncovering similarities and differences in attitudes toward physical disability as well as attitudes toward the educational process" (p. 6). While it is true that his primary concern was the development of a methodology which would take into account differing cultures, social systems, and languages, it would appear that the techniques 1A series of studies is being developed by Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University. Data is being collected in many countries including the United States. A. he utilized are of value for comparable research in the United States. One is impressed by the fact that the handicapped in our society can be viewed as constituting a significant minority group. Tenny (1953), has provided us with a sound argument to this end. It can be argued that the handicapped represent a different culture, and a different social system much in the same manner as do other ethnic groups in the United States. Certainly the problems of our culturally deprived as well as those of our blind and deaf citizens must be more clearly understood if we are to provide them with the counseling and training they require to make a satisfactory adjustment in a culture in which they are a minority group. Our national attitudes toward minority groups seem to be more negative than positive. This is perhaps due to the fact that we have difficulty in accepting those who differ significantly from our "norms". Tenny (l953), indicates that this is particularly true with regard to the attitudes of the "normal" society toward the handicapped. It seems reasonable to assume that since most special educators have no discernible handicaps,that their attitudes toward minority groups may be somewhat similar to those held by most members of the society. Certainly there exists no evidence to indicate that through training or cultural affiliation they possess attitudes of greater acceptance of the handicapped than do other members of the majority group. In fact, to this writers knowledge, no attempt has been made to determine and compare the attitudes of special educators and "regular“ educators either toward education in general or toward the handicapped. Pelty (1965), and Friesen (1966), have demonstrated an interest in the comparability of attitudes held by differing cultures toward education and the handicapped. They have developed a methodology and techniques that allow such comparison. Such a comparison would seem to represent a first step in the ultimate development of a technique for determining the attitudes held by individuals who elect to prepare themselves to aid the handicapped and other minority groups in our society. By utilizing the techniques and methodology advocated by Felty (1965). and Friesen (1966), the data obtained in this study can be utilized in a larger cross-cultural research project being conducted under the direction of fii Dr. John E. Jordan.1 Such a technique not only increases the amount of data available for comparative purposes but will ultimately allow comparison of attitudes among the various special education groups and among differing cultural groups. The fact that these data can be utilized by special education and rehabilitation workers in different countries represents a secondary objective of this study and lends support to the utilization of the techniques and methods to be described. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to investigate the attitudes of special educators toward education and toward physical disability utilizing the technical, methodological, and theoretical concepts developed by Friesen (1966), and Felty (1965). A set of instruments will be employed which will enable comparison of these attitudes from one special education group to another while allowing utilization of the data obtained for future comparison among differing cultural groups. 1See footnote on page 6 -‘< —- -~—.— 10 The attitudes obtained will also be related to selected demographic variables which theoretically should serve either as predictors or correlates of attitudes. It has been suggested that values are important determinants of attitudes and that individuals who perceive others as having intrinsic worth will have more favorable attitudes toward the handicapped than will individuals who value others according to more absolute comparative standards (Wright, 1960, pp. 128-133). Similar measures can be obtained relative to an individual's attitude toward education provided a favorable-unfavorable continuum is assumed. A part of the problem will be to determine if in fact such a relationship exists with regard to attitudes of special educators toward education. Friesen (1966, p. 9) has suggested that the amount of personal contact as well as the alternatives to personal contact with the handicapped serve as determinants of attitudes. It is to be assumed that all types of special educators will indicate appreciable contact with the handicapped. However, another problem will be to determine the relationship of alternatives to contact as determinants of attitude scores. 11 Modern computer techniques make it possible to analyze diverse personal and demographic data. Such data acquired from the sub—sets of special educators should be informative ’ and of value in subsequent research. Definition of Terms The following terms need to be operationally defined as used in this study: Attitude-“The sense in which this general term will be used follows the definition by Guttman (1950, p. 51). An attitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something. For example, the attitude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of acts that a person has performed with respect to Negroes." Use of this definition is consistent with the attempt to use some of Guttman's concepts in respect to scale and intensity analysis. Attitude Component.--Cempeneats of attitudes have been discussed by various investigators (e.g., Katz, 1960, p. 168: Rosenberg, 1960, p. 320, ff; Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9). The two components typically considered are those of belief and intensity, although Guttman defines additional components according to certain mathematical properties. In this study, the first component will be that of item content (or belief), A 12 the second that of item intensity (cf. Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9; Suchman, 1950, Ch. 7). Attitude Content.--The attitude content component refers to the actual item statements within an attitude scale. Attitude Intensity.—-The attitude intensity component refers to the affective statements that a respondent makes regarding each content item; operationally, it consists of a separate statement for each attitude item on which the respondent may indicate how strongly he feels about the statement. Attitude Scale.--As used in this study, a scale is a set of items which fall into a particular relationship in respect to the ordering of respondents. A set of ithS can be said to form a scale if each person's responses to each item can be reproduced from the knowledge of his total scorc on the test within reasonable limits of error (e.g., Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3; Stouffer, 1950, Ch. 1). Demographic Variables.——Specifically, this refers in the present study to certain statistical data frequently used in sociological studies. These variables are age, say, education, income, rental, occupation, numbcr of siblings, occupational and residential mobility, and whether thc respondent spent his youth in a rural or urban setting. r——————_————" 13 Educational Progressivism.--A ten—item scale of progressive attitudes toward education developed by Kerlinger (1958). ! Educational Traditionalism.--A ten~item scale of f traditional attitudes toward education developed by i Kerlinger (1958). These measures do not constitute scales as defined for the present study, but rather are constituted of items which appeared in factor analytic studies, and which were characterized by the terms which identify the scales. HandicaE.--This term signifies the social disadvantages placed upon a physically impaired person by virtue of the i impairment. A handicap is a consequence of culturally held values and attitudes which serve to define the physically impaired person socially. Impairment.--This term signifies a defect in tissue or in body structure. As such it has no particular functional connotations. Institutional Satisfaction.—-This term is used C) describe a set of variables on which the respondents were asked to indicate how well they felt that various kinds of local institutions were doing their job in the community. 14 Those institutions were schools, business, labor, government, health services, and churches. gngerest Grou2.--Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society to engage in particular forms of behavior. Associational interest groups work as collecti- vities to exert influence (e.g., Almond & Coleman, 1960). Occupational Personalism.—-This term is operationally defined by quostionnaire items designed to ascertain: first, about what percent of the time people work with others with whom they feel personally involved: second, how important it is to work with people with whom one is personally involved. A personalistic orientation to life is sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960). Physical Disabilitx.--This is a functional term denoting some loss of the tool function of the body. The term "handicapped" was used in the questionnaires since this appeared to be a more meaningful terminology. g;habi;itation.--A term signifying "restoration of the disabled to the fullest physical, mental, social, and vocational usefulness possible" (Jordan, 1964b). AA 2.. 15 Relational Diffusion.--This term is operationally defined by a questionnaire item designed to determine the extent to which personal relations on the job diffuse into a person's non-job social milieu. A personalistic diffusion between the social milieu and occupational milieu is sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960). Religiosity.-—A term used to denote orientation to religion. Operationally, it is defined by three items: first, religious perference; second, the importance of religion: third, the extent to which the rules and regulations of the religion are followed. Special Education.-—Following Kirk (1962, p. 29) this term characterized educational practices "that are unique, uncommon, of unusual quality, and in particular are in addition to the organization and instructional procedures used with the majority of children." Jordan (1964b, p. 1) has commented: "the basic aim of special education is to prevent a disability from becoming a handicap." yglgg,--Two value terms are used, but defined operationally by the same set of measures. Asset values predispose a person to evaluate others according to their own unique potentials and characteristics. Comparative values A predispose a person to evaluate others according to external criteria of success and achievement (Wright, 1960, pp. 128- 133). Operationally these values are defined by three scales on the Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960). Asset values will be.measured by the Benevolence Scale, Comparative Values by the Recognition and Leadership Scales. These three scales were judged by the investigator to have adequate face validity for the measurement of the values proposed by Wright. Additional value orientations measured by the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values are labeled Support, Conformity, and Independence. Teachers of the Educable Retarded.--Individuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as teachers of the retarded who are currently teaching in state approved programs for the educable child. Teachers of the Trainable Retarded.-—Indi¢idua13 possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as teachers of the retarded who are currently teaching in state approved programs for the trainable child. Teachers of the Acoustically Handicapped.--Individuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing who 17 are currently teaching in state approved programs for the acoustically handicapped child. Teachers of the Visually Handicapped.-—1ndividuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as teachers of the blind and partially sighted who are currently teaching in state approved programs for the visually handicapped child. Speech Correctionists.-- Individuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as speech correctionists who are currently teaching in state approved programs for children with speech handicaps. Visiting Teacher.-—Individuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as visiting teachers who are currently serving in state apprOVCd programs for children with marginal emotional problems. Diagnosticians.--Individuals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate or its equivalent and state approval as a diagnostician who are currently serving in state approved programs for the mentally retarded. CE‘U‘P'i‘El‘i II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH It is significant that while many studies have been directed at attitudes as they relate to the handicapped few have been concerned with attitudes held by special educators toward handicapped members of our society. In fact. in what is considered to be a comprehensive review of contemporary literature, no researcher was found who sought to determine the attitudes hold by the special educator toward handicapped children. As has been indicated such information is vital to the improvement of methods of teacher selection and training. Attitudinal Studies Included in this review are many studies directed specifically at attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Presentation of these data also provides information of value in any attempt to measure attitudes toward the physically handicapped and toward education generally. To facilitate the review the studies are grouped as follows: (a) attitudes held by peers, (b) attitudes held by normal adults, (c) attitudes held by parents of the handicapped, (d) attitudes held by teachers, (e) attitudinal studies of a general nature. l9 Attitudes Held by Peers Billings (1963) investigated the attitudes of normal children toward crippled peers. He reported that all attitudes of normal peers were unfavorable with those of the older children being more negative than the younger. It is interesting to note that those normal peers judged by their teachers to be high in personal adjustment were most unfavorable in their attitudes toward the crippled. These conclusions tend to support the position of Tenny (1953), Barker (1948), and Force (1956), that individuals who differ physically from the majority of the people around them have a minority status and as such are subject to the dynamics of any minority group. Centers and Centers (1963) analyzed peer attitudes toward the amputee child and reported a significantly greater number of rejecting attitudes exhibited toward the handicapped. Fishman (1958) reported on the implications of upper extremity amputations and indicated that as the society perceives that a positive correction of a deformity is possible "...there is a reduction in anxiety and prejudice concerning the physically handicapped and a corresponding increase in their acceptance by society" (p. 93). 20 Bateman (1962) investigated peer attitudes toward the visually handicapped. She indicated that normal peers with blind friends perceived the blind as more capable than did peers who had not known blind children. She further indicated that urban children were more positive in their attitudes toward the blind than were those from other community areas. Unlike the conclusions of Billings (1963), Bateman reported that favorable attitudes tend to increase with grade level. West (1962) indicated that exposure to children with visual problems tended to result in positive change in the attitudes toward the visually handicapped held by normal peers. A similar observation was made by Justman and Moskowitz (1957) relative to attitude change toward integrated deaf. Force (1956) attempted to determine the social position of physically handicapped children among normal peers. He indicated that handicapped children are not as well accepted as normal children at the elementary level. Another conclusion reached by Force is of interest to the current study. He indicated that the physically handicapped have varying social values with cerebral palsy ranking lowest on the value scale. Miller (1956) compared the social status of normal, retarded, and superior children. He reported that superior children are best liked and retarded least. His results indicated only a moderate acceptance of the retarded child. In reporting the attitudes of adolescents toward retarded peers Jaffe (1966) made the following statement: ...that those having contact with the retarded attributed a greater number of favorable traits to the retarded stimulus person but responded similarly on the other measures suggesting that contact may be related to a more cognitive or descriptive dimension of attitude (p. 911). Most researchers who have investigated the attitudes of normal members of society toward their retarded peers reported a general lack of acceptance of this minority group. Baldwin (1958), Jordan (1959), Johnson (1961), and Thurstone (1959, 1960) have reported similar findings in this regard. Attitudes Held_by Adults Force (1956), Warren and Turner (1966), Warren, Turner, and Brady (1964), have reported rank order acceptance of disability labels by various subjects. Generally speaking the superior or apparently nonhandicapped individual enjoys the greatest social acceptability. The severely retarded or most visably handicapped is least socially acceptable. Similar findings were reported by Jones, Gottfried, and Owens (1966). A 22 Goodman, Dornbush, Richardson, and Hastorf (1963) reported similar findings in a study in which the subjects selected pictures in the order of no handicap to most visible handicap. Semmel and Dickinson (1966) in a study of the connotative reactions of college students to disability labels noted that special education majors indicated greater acceptance of the handicapped when compared with elementary education majors. They also reported a significant and almost linear trend between amount of reported contact with the handicapped and mean scores on the Connotative Reaction Inventory. Yuker (1965) discussed attitudes of normal persons toward the handicapped. He emphasized that as association with the handicapped increased the normal person needed help in terms of attitude modification. He indicated that the handicapped person must be evaluated as an individual rather than as an object of pity. ...some disabled persons are not suitable for fraternity membership, just as some nondisabled persons are not suitable for membership (Yuker, p. 15). Bradt (1957) in a comparative study of the attitudes of education majors and undergraduates in other fields of study toward the handicapped reached the following conclusions: 23 1. Education students were no more willing to teach the handicapped than were non—education majors. 2. Education majors showed less acceptance of the crippled child than non-education students. 3. Non-education students were openly hostile toward mentally handicapped and socio—emotionally maladjusted children. Whiteman and Lukoff (1962) speculating on what conditions determine an individuals attitude toward the blind stated the following: An individuals demographic, social, and personality characteristics make a difference in the intensity ' with which attitudes toward blindness are held (p. 154). Rudloff (1964) supports the contention that among a hoaring society the deaf are perceived as having less ability, being less friendly, and having negative or neutral personalities when compared with the normal society. Kinbrell and Luckey (1964) attempted to indicate the effect of minimal contact on attitude change in relation to selected factors involved in the operation of a state training school for the mentally retarded. Of ten content items evaluated, a ninety minute tour of the school resulted in significant changes in pro—post tour mean scores on five of the items. Utilizing a similar technique Warren, Turner and Brady (1964) reported that attitudes toward the brain—injured, and ‘ 24 the mildly and severely retarded did not change in a positive direction. In some cases attitudes became more negative. Implications of these findings were interpreted in terms of students' perceptions, the reinforcement of existing negative attitudes and the short duration of the visit. Analyzing attitudes toward the schizophrenic, Kantor (1966) concluded that significant social prejudice exists against the schizophrenic person and results in a negative social action toward him. Wright and Klein (1966) compared attitudes of the general public with those of hospital personnel toward the mentally ill. They indicated that formal educational training and experience with mental illness can have a powerful and favorable effect on attitudes. (Attitudes of Parents Ryckman and Henderson (1965) approached the child—parent relationship from the point of view of the impact of the handicapped child on the parents. Six areas of meaning were presented which were closely related to the self-concept of the parent. They suggested that these areas of meaning might be helpful in the organization of an approach to the problems created by the presence of a handicapped child in the family. 25 Jordan (1963) also studied the effect of the handicapped child on the family. He noted that the anxiety, usually present at all births. continued to increase with the birth of a handicapped child. He concluded that the home is usually more tension prone due to the presence of a handicapped child. Soldwedel, Bette, Terrill, and Isabelle (1957) investigated the attitudes of normal children and their parents toward handicapped peers. They noted that parents of handicapped children see their children as seeing themselves identified with a handicapped minority to the exclusion of a normal society. They also pointed out that parents of the handicapped tend to select handicapped children over normal peers as playmates, classmates. and guests at a party for their handicapped children. Denkoff and Holden (1954) indicated that parents who were most accepting of their child's disability created an environment which resulted in greater academic achievement by their children. Cook (1963) characterized the attitudes of mothers of handicapped children in the following manner: Diability Attitude 1. blind and severely handicapped over protective W'— ’ -——vv-e. - 26 2. deaf and organically handicapped over indulgent 3. mongoloid and cerebral palsy punitive 4. mildly handicapped rejecting No attempt was made to determine the intensity of the attitudes. Hofnagel (1965) commenting on the self-mutilating characteristics of selected neurological impaired children indicated that changes in attitudes toward the handicapped were essential. Such changes in a positive direction would > help parents to have fewer guilt feelings and less anger. Jordan (1963) examined the impact of a cerebral palsy child on the family. He reported increased anxiety and an increased number of role changes. The parents are usually overprotective and the child becomes more dependent. Browne, Mally, and Kane (1960) stressed the importance of positive, objective, accepting attitudes in the successful management of hemophilic children. A similar conclusion was reached by Gurney (1958) after analyzing the attitudes of parents of children with congenital amputation. Cohen (1966) analyzed the effect of blindness on emotional development. He called for acceptance and support from the family. He stated that the emotional environment 27 of the home determines whether a child will benefit from special services. Reeves (1962) indicated that a high correlation exists between use of hearing aids by auditorily handicapped children and ratings of home conditions. These were rated as good, fair, or poor according to the intensity of positive and dynamic attitudes displayed by parents. Varwig (1965) reported similar findings. Marge (1966) studied the attitudes of parents toward speech handicapped children. She indicated that parents of both normal speaking and speech defective children have similar attitudes toward the speech handicapped. It was reported that parents of the speech handicapped place more emphasis on the importance of good speech. Parents of both groups tend to feel that speech disorders are less handicapping than other conditions and consequently are more acceptable. Cummings, Bayley, and Rie (1966) in a comprehensive analysis of the effects of a child's deficiency on the mother reported that a mother of any exceptional child has more psychological stress than the mother of normal children. They indicated that mothers of retarded children have more stress than those of the chronically ill. 28 For the mothers in the mentally retarded group a pattern may be seen to emerge...With the exception of the Depressive Peeling Scale. the remaining scales on which they deviate all-relate to feelings about the interactions with the deficient child: Preoccupation with Child. Difficulty in Handling Anger at Child. Sense of Maternal Competence. Enjoyment of the Child. Possessiveness. and Ignoring Tendencies in Child-rearing Practices (Cummings, et. al.. p. 604). hppell.‘Williams. and Fishell (1964). Harris (1959) and Bitter (1963) demonstrated that attitudes of parents of sontally handicapped children could be modified through a series of parent group discussions. They observed that change was toward more positive and accepting attitudes. Stubblefield (1965) and Rappaport (1965) indicated that religion plays an ever increasing role in parental acceptance of retardation. Parber (1960) studied maintenance of integration in families with severely retarded children. He stated that retarded boys place the greatest stress upon the family and that institutionalization tended to alleviate many of the pressures. He concluded that religion and social status were significant factors in determining the ability of the family to manage the severely retarded child at home. Attitudes Held by_Teachers Fendereon (1964) Observed that while teachers of the handicapped must be skilled in applying learning techniques 29 they must also display genuine interest in the child. He emphasized that our attitudes toward the handicapped can be evaluated through utilization of the principle that handi— capped persons have a right to full personal dignity. they have normal needs and feelings and they can and do grow up. Haring. Stern. and Cruickshank (1958) directed what is perhaps the most comprehensive analysis of the attitude. of educators toward exceptional children. They attempted to measure the amount of existing information concerning disability held by the respondents as well as their attitudes to various disabilities. In addition an attempt was made to change information levels and modify attitudes through a series of workshops. They reported that the information levels of respondents changed significantly and that attitudes toward seven types of disability were significantly altered. They indicated that the teachers were able to modify their attitudes toward some kinds of handi- capping conditions more easily than toward others. Of interest in terms of the present study is their observation that: The significant differences between the areas of deviation were a function of the teachers initial acceptance in the area, and the number of experiences with exceptional children in the area (Haring. et. al.. p. 117). 30 Murphy (1960) investigated the attitudes of various groups of educators toward the handicapped. One of his conclusions has a relationship to the current study. He suggested that a positive trend-correlation exists between how much a teacher ghi§§§_he knows about a specific area of exceptionality and his attitudes or acceptance of the disability. Murphy (1962) investigating attitudes of educators toward the blind found that they least preferred to teach the blind. He indicated that these negative attitudes were related to limited information relative to visual loss. He asserted that increasing information should result in positive attitude change. Toms (1964) stressed the importance of good mental health for teachers of the visually handicapped. She indicated that since a child reflects the attitudes of those around him. those attitudes should be healthy and accepting. O'Connor and O'Connor (1961) reached a similar conclusion relating to the effect of teachers attitudes upon the integrated deaf child. They attributed much of the academic failure of the integrated deaf child to the negative eXpressions of regular teachers. Formaad (1965) indicated 31 that negative attitudes on the part of teachers of the deaf could also result in student failure. Emerick (1960) compared the actual countings of stutterings made by two groups of teachers with the teachers attitudes toward stuttering. Although speech pathologists count more stutterings in a given sample of speech than do lay judges. speech pathologists have better. that is. more tolerant, attitudes toward stuttering than do lay individuals (Emerick. p. 181). Semmel (1959) made a comparative analysis of the attitudes of special education teachers and regular teachers with regard to the mentally retarded. It was noted that no significant difference existed in the attitudes of the two groups. However. he indicated that the special education teachers possessed a significantly greater knowledge of the general area of mental dificiency. Kndblock and Garcia (1965) reported success in the development of more positive attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed among teachers and administrators. They attributed the change to the dissemination of information relative to programs and needs of the emotionally disturbed. Wiener and O'Shea (1963) reported on the attitudes of university faculty, administrators, supervisors. and students toward the gifted. They indicated several observations that 32 appear to relate to the attitudes of similar groups toward the physically handicapped. Administrators who had classes for the superior child had more positive attitudes toward the gifted than those who did not. Male administrators were more favorable toward the gifted than female administrators. On the other hand female students were more favorable than males. Several demographic variables such as sex. age. education. and income had little significance among some groups and were highly significant among others. General Attitudinal Studieg Hanks and Hanks (1948) reported on attitudes of non-occidental societies toward the handicapped. Protection of the physically handicapped and social participation for them is increased in societies where: (a) the level of productivity is higher in proportion to the population and its distribution are more nearly equal. (b) competitive factors in individual or group achievement are minimized. (c) the criteria of achievement are less formally absolute as in the hierarchical social structures and more weighted with concern for individual capacity. as in democratic social structures (p. 20). Tenny (1953) has indicated the similarities between the handicapped and other minority groups in our society. Minority groups and the handicapped. according to Tenny. share the following similarities: 1. Social distance exists and rejection takes place. The individual usually withdraws or becomes agressive. 33 2. .Minority groups and the handicapped usually become stereotyped in the eyes of the public through movies. comic strips. and jokes. This. in part. explains the negative attitude of the general public toward these two groups. 3. As society rejects these stereotyped groups they become segregated. 4. Job opportunities for these groups are limited resulting in low economic and social status. Berreman (1954) in a critique of Tenny's position pointed out that While similarities do exist between minority groups and the handicapped there are also important differences. Among these are: 1. The child from a minority group identifies with the group and gains strength from it. Such is not the case with the handicapped. 2. The handicapped are usually treated with kindness and understanding as children and then experience rejection in employment as adults by the same society which indulged them as children. YUker (1965) stated that studies at the Human Resources Institute showed that people who are prejudiced against the disabled also tend to be prejudiced against ethnic groups. 3"! Yuker (1965) discussed attitudes of the handicapped toward themselves indicating that such attitudes are more important than the person's actual disability. and are not in proportion to the extent of the disability. Thus in terms of attitudes. a person missing two legs might be better adjusted and more self-accepting than another who is missing only 3 fingers (p. 16). Jones and Gottfried (1966) determined that special education teachers as a group have high prestige when judged by other teachers or prospective teachers. They noted that teachers of the educable retarded rated themselves lower than the regular classroom teachers rated them. The authors speculated on why more teachers did not enter the special education field. They felt that three factors were important. A perceived lack of congruence between respondent personal characteristics and the traits needed for special education teaching. the relationship of rated occupational prestige to other variables. and the competition from other areas (p. 468). Holzber (1964) investigated changes in moral judgment and self-acceptance in college students as a function of companionship with hospitalized mental patients. He indicated that such a relationship resulted in increased acceptance of defiant behavior on the part of the participants as well as an increase in self-acceptance. 35 Wright and Klein (1966) in a similar study determined that hospital personnel showed a greater acceptance of the mentally ill than did non-hospital employed adults. Whiteman and Lukoff (1962) utilizing a blindness index. studied the attitudes of 500 blind individuals. The index indicated that blind individuals who had an unfavorable evaluation of blindness had a low self-concept. displayed little critical attitude toward the sighted. and tended to have a dependent mode of adjustment. Holtzmen. Kelly. and Person (1958) utilized a Likert-type scale to determine attitudes toward the negro in the south. They determined that attitudes toward this minority group were significantly related to the geographic region from which the respondent came. father's occupation. major field of study in college and religious preference. In addition. they noted that there was a slight tendency for those with favorable attitudes toward the church to be less tolerant of the negro. A study by Nunally and Babren (1959) had little direct relationship to the present study but provides some interesting speculation relative to attitude change. Utilizing false information designed to provide a description of catatonic schizophrenia which would produce greater public acceptance p m 35' of this minority group they found the information effective in movement of attitudes in a more positive direction. They hypothesized that existing false beliefs sometimes serve a useful purpose in reducing feelings of threat. Graham (1962) reported that the basic roadblocks to the development of effective special education programs are the lack of understanding. acceptance. and readiness of the public. Analysis of the above studies indicates that most are descriptive in nature and have utilized instruments and techniques developed specifically for the purposes of the study. Such studies while providing insight into the immediate problem do not lend themselves to the development of a theoretical framework which could be used to formulate general hypotheses about attitudes. their measurement. and their meaning in terms of the handicapped members of our society. Kvaraceus (1958). Levine (1961). and Meyerson (1955. 1963). are among those who feel the need for research designs that will generate a body of theory in the area of special education. O'Connor and Golberg (1959) have indicated that much of the research in special education and rehabilitation has little relationship to theory and makes 37 few attempts to profit from other related research in the social sciences. The present study is. in part. an attempt to overcome much of this lack of generality. Theoretical Fgamgwogk Attitudes Toward Disability An attempt has been made to utilize the theoretical constructs developed by Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966). Both have relied heavily on a model which is consistent with the social-psychological approach to physical disability. The central constructs of such a model are those of 593;. 9513;. reference 93232. £913. attitude and M. Within this framework it is possible to view physical disability as a social value judgment. Developing this concept further. we may state that the impact of disability upon the handicapped and upon the society is in large measure determined by societies reaction (attitude) to the disability and hence toward its possessor. Support for such a theoretical position has been posited by Barker. et. al. (1953). Wright (1960). Meyerson (1955. 1963). and Dembo. et. a1. (1956). Levine (1961) has hypothesized a relationship between attitude and value which is primary to the present study. While he accepts the concept that disability is a social 38 value judgment he suggests that an added relationship exists among the concepts of social role. role perception. role value and attitude. He argues that society views the handicapped in terms of their value to society. He implies that value (worth) is related to potential for leadership. capability of contributing to the improvement of the society. potential for good citizenship. and being an acceptable head of a family. Such valuations of the handicapped. particularily those with highly visible disabilities. often result in a negative attitude toward handicapped members of our society. The studies by Centers and Centers (1963). Force (1956). Warren and Turner (1966). Semmel and Dickinson (1966). and others which have been reviewed above. tend to support Levine's contention. Dembo. Leviton and Wright (1956) have suggested that the devaluation of the handicapped. based upon their worth to society. results from a system of comparative 33125 orientation. They state that values can be classified based upon their derivation. The comparative value orientation relies on a set of standards against which any individual or society may be evaluated. Examples of existing standards are heredity (comparison with the past) and achievement (comparison with present norms). The anthesis of comparative 39 evaluation according to Wright (1960) is ggggt valuation. She states "...if evaluation arises from the qualities inherent in the object of judgment itself. the person is said to be invoking asset values" (p. 29). The gggggrcggpgrative system of value classification will be utilized in the present study. A system of determining the value orientation of special educators was devised using the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon. 1960). Discussion of the Gordon scales is contained in Chapter III. While some of the hypotheses used in the current investigation were generated from the asset—comparative value orientation. others are based on studies similar to those discussed earlier in this chapter. Homans (1950) and others have suggested that frequency of contact between individuals or groups is related to attitude toward those individuals or groups in a positive direction. He also observed that minimal contact resulted in neutral or negative attitudes. Allport (1958) studying attitudes toward negroes indicated that individuals having contact with high status negroes held more positive attitudes toward that ethnic group than individuals having contact with low status negroes. 40 Since the handicapped can also be viewed as a minority group (Tenny, 1953). and are perceived as having high or low status (Semsel. 1966) Allport's findings appear relevant to the present study. Zetterberg (1963) reviewed Malawski's observation that frequency of social contact and its relation to positive attitudes was dependent upon the cost of avoiding the interaction and available alternatives to the contact. These observations would seem of value in an analysis of attitudes . toward the handicapped held by special educators. An analysis of the above studies suggests that various aspects of contact with the disabled may be of value in developing a theoretical framework for the study of attitudes. It may be hypothesized that attitudes toward the handicapped may become more positive or favorable if: 1. frequency of contact with the handicapped is increased (Romans. 1950, p. 112). 2. the handicapped individual is perceived as “high status" or where the disability lacks visibility (Allport, 1958. p. 254). 3. the contact is volitional (Zetterberg, 1963. p. 13). 4. there are acceptable alternatives to the contact (Zetterberg. 1963. p. 13). 41 5. the contact is "enjoyable" (Zetterberg. 1963. p. 13). For purposes of this study a number of hypotheses are posited relating to contact with handicapped members of the society. As is indicated above an attempt has been made to determine frequency of contact, ease of avoidance of the contact, enjoyment of the contact, and acceptable alternatives to the contact. The specific hypotheses will be found in Chapter III. Attitudes Toward Education In an attempt to determine the attitudes of respondents toward education (Felty. 1965) and (Friesen, 1966) utilized a scale developed by Kerlinger (1956). The Kerlinger scale is built upon a restrictive-tradi- tional and permissive-progressive dichotomy of attitudes toward education. Most educators never question this dichotomy in educational values and attitudes and as a result it is accepted as a reality. Kerlinger (1958) described traditional and progressive educational concepts in the following manner. The restrictive-traditional education viewpoint is: A generally narrow and practical (in a limited and limiting sense)...emphasis is on subject matter for its own sake, impersonal superior-inferior relationships with considerable importance attached to the hierarchical nature of such relationships. 42 external discipline. and conservative status quo preserving social beliefs. “Morality“ is strongly emphasized and based on external "higher” authority (9. 112). In contrast, the permissive-progressive educational viewpoint is described by Kerlinger as: ...characterized by emphasis on problem-solving and relative de-emphasis on subject matter and knowledge, education as growth, children's interests and needs as basic to education, equality and warmth in interpersonal relationships. internal discipline, liberal social beliefs which emphasize education as an instrument of social change, and a morality based on social and individual responsibility (p. 112). Kerlinger's theory of the relationship between attitudes and educational values can be summarized as follows: 1. Individuals having the same or similar occupational or professional roles will hold similar attitudes toward a cognitive object which is significantly related to the occupational or professional role. Individuals having dissimilar roles will hold dissimilar attitudes. 2. There exists a basic dichotomy in the educational values and attitudes of people, corresponding generally to “restrictive“ and "permissive", or "traditional" and "progressive" modes of looking at education. 43 3. Individuals will differ in degree or strength of dichotomization. the degree or strength of dichotomization being a function of occupational role. extent of knowledge of the cognitive object (education). the importance of the cognitive object to the subjects. and their experience with it. 4. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of education. but individuals will tend to attach different weights to different areas. specifically . to the areas of (a) teaching-subject-matter- curriculum. (b) interpersonal relations. (c) normative. and (d) authority-discipline (Kerlinger. 1956. p. 290). Smith (1963) utilizing the Kerlinger scales indicated that individuals holding progressive educational attitudes tended to be liberal in their social attitudes. Individuals holding traditional educational attitudes tended to be conservative in their social attitudes. For purposes of the present study six hypotheses were generated from the Kerlinger and Smith data. A relationship is postulated between progressive educational attitudes and change orientation as well as asset orientation toward others. In addition. it is hypothesized that persons in the 44 special education field will hold progressive educational attitudes and will be more change oriented and express asset oriented values. Measurement of Intensity Rosenburg (1960) considered the intensity component of an attitude as an action predictor. Carlson (1956. p. 259) found initial intense attitudes much more resistant to change than moderately held attitudes. Guttman and Pea (1951) indicated that the intensity of an attitude is related to the amount of social contact that one has with the attitude object. As has been indicated the present study utilizes a simple approximation of the intensity function by asking ”How strongly do you feel about this?“ The response categories following such a question are very strongly. fairly strongly. and not so strongly. The specific procedure for intensity measurement is outlined by Suchman (1950. p. 219). Measurement of Attitudes Attitude as used in the current study is defined as a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something" (Guttman, 1950. p. 51). Responses on an attitude scale are one form of delimited behavior. but the attitude universe. according to Guttman, may consist of many forms of behavior J which are more or less intercorrelated and which form separate sub-universes. An adequate attitude abstraction from this universe should include sampling from each of the possible sub-universes. Such a task exceeds empirical possibility. A statement of the conceptual problem. however. points up limitations in the range of inferences one may make from a limited sampling of behavior. We may assume that a relationship will exist between a subjects statements about a handicapped person and his overt behavior toward that individual. Green makes three other observations relative to attitudes. their underlying characteristics. and their relationship to other variables. First. there must be a consistency of responses in respect to some social object. Second. the attitude itself is an abstraction from a set of consistent or covarying responses. "In each measurement method. covariation among responses is related to the variation of an underlying variable. The latent attitude is defined by the correlations among responses“ (Green. 1954. pp. 335-336). Responses themselves are not attitudes: rather. the attitude is defined by the latent variable. The detection of this latent variable requires certain scale properities. Finally. an attitude differs from other 46 psychological variables (with the exception of value) because it is always in terms of a referent class of social objects. While the following studies were not available for review (since they are still in process) they are related to the larger concurrent-replicative cross cultural research project on attitudes toward education and toward handicapped persons underway at Michigan State University. They are listed to make them known to the prefessional public. The additional studies. (with their projected completion dates) examine: attitudes in Japan (Cessna. 1967): comparison of special versus regular educators (Green. 1967); relation- ships between attitudes. values. contact and theological orientations (Dean. 1967): attitudes of college counselors (Palmerton. 1967); ministers attitudes toward mental retardation (Hester. 1967); attitudes toward general disability versus blindness (Dickie. 1967); attitudes toward general disability versus deafness (Weir. 1968): and factors influencing attitudes toward integration of handicapped children in regular classes (Proctor. 1967). Chapter 111 indicates the development of hypotheses specifically relating interpersonal values to attitudes. The Gordon Scale of Interpersonal Values (1960) is utilized for this purpose. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to attempt a comparative analysis of the attitudes of several types (see Chapter I for type derinitions) of special educators toward the physically handicapped as well as toward education in general. A secondary objective was the employment of a set of instruments developed for the purpose of assessing cross-cultural attitudes in the broad areas of education and rehabilitation.1 Pelty (1965) first utilized the design. instruments and methodology in a study conducted in San Jose. Costa Rica. Friesen (1966) further refined the design in a study of the nature and determinants of attitudes toward education and the handicapped in CohaMbia. Peru and the United States. As has been indicated. no study has been found which has attempted to determine and compare the attitudes of differing types of special education personal. For the purposes of this study the following groups of special educators were selected for comparison: (a) teachers of the educable retarded. (b) teachers of the trainable retarded. v— 1See footnote on page 6. 47 48 (c) visiting teachers. (d) diagnosticians. (e) teachers of the visually handicapped. (f) teachers of the auditorily handicapped. and (9) speech correctionists. Research Population General Congiderations All educators included in this sample held provisional or permanent certification or its equivalent as teachers with the Michigan Department of Education. In addition. each was approved in his particular area of special education. The questionnaires were administered during the summer of 1965 at state or county workshops for special educators held in several locations throughout Michigan. It is reasonable to assume that such a procedure resulted in a representative sample of special educators from among Michigan school districts since all educators attending the workshop participated in the study. The variation among the N's for each of the seven groups is attributed to the differences in the numbers of such personnel employed in the school districts of Michigan. While there are many programs for the educable retarded there are relatively few for the trainable. If a school district in Michigan anticipates state financial reimbursement for a diagnostician it must have in its own district or in a 49 combination of districts. 5.000 children in school membership. In the case of the visiting teacher the membership requirement is 2.500. Further variations in the numbers of special educators in each of the disability areas are related to availability of teachers as well as basic differences in the state reimbursement schedules designed to provide support to local districts offering special education services. Teachers of the Educable Retarded The State Department of Education supports two types of services for the educable retarded child. Each is designed to provide service to children who are diagnosed as potentially socially competent. One of the programs designated Type A. involves the organization of a special class. While children in this program are given an opportunity to participate in selected activities with non-handicapped children. the major portion of their academic training is carried out within the special room. The other program for the educable retarded is designated Type C. This program recognizes that many mentally retarded children. who are socially adjusted. achieve well in a regular classroom if they are identified and given assistance with the regular instructional program. Such assistance is 50 provided under the Type C service by fully approved teachers of the retarded. For purposes of this investigation Type A and Type C teachers were combined. The group was composed of 34 male and 98 female teachers. Teachers of the Tgaigable.Retarded Programs for the trainable retarded child in Michigan are referred to as Type B or County Trainable Programs. Children served in such programs are described as potentially partially socially competent. Essentially such children are incapable of being educated properly and efficiently through ordinary classroom instruction or in special education programs designed to meet the needs of the educable retarded child. Fully approved teachers in this group must meet the same educational requirements as teachers of the educable retarded child. This group was composed of 2 males and 18 females. While the total N of 20 is low the sample represents approximately thirty percent of the teachers of the trainable in the state of Michigan. Visiting Teachers The term visiting teachers is confusing in some respects. The program is essentially a school social work program. 51 Children requiring visiting teacher service are those who possess social or emotional problems which tend to interfer with education or social adjustment. An analysis of referrals to this service will reveal prOblems in school adjustment. home adjustment. social and personal adjustment as well as physical problems. The visiting teacher holds a teacher's certificate and specific approval to serve as a visiting teacher. Recently the program title has been changed to that of school social_ worker. While the rules and regulations governing the operation of this new program have not been approved as of this writing it is understood that social workers without teaching certificates may be employed in this role. However. the data collected in this area was from professional workers with both teaching certificates and specific approval in the visiting teacher area. The visiting teacher sample consisted of 13 males and 23 females. Diagnosticians The services of diagnosticians are designed to provide a method by which children may be evaluated and selected for the educational and training programs for mentally retarded students. Essentially their responsibility is the diagnosis 52 of problems possessed by children who are referred due to academic failure. provision of interpretive data and follow-up. and re-evaluation of children referred for possible program adjustment. While the comparison is not wholly accurate diagnosticians in Michigan are many times identified with the title ”school psychologist”. The diagnosticians are the only group in the total sample who are not required to hold a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate. Membership in either the American or Michigan _ Psychological Associations may be substituted for the teaching certificate. The diagnostician group was composed of 17 males and 15 females. Teachers of the Vigually Handicapped This group was composed of teachers of both blind and partially sighted children. As with the retarded. Michigan supports two kinds of programs for the visually handicapped. One of these is the special classroom which may be attended by both the blind and the partially sighted. Usually Children are integrated into regular classrooms as soon as they can compete and profit from such a setting. Another itind of service is provided by trained teachers of the visually handicapped to children who are placed in regular classrooms. 53 The “teacher-counselor" provides the visually handicapped child and the regular teacher with special instruction and materials. All teachers in this group held a valid teaching certificate and were approved teachers of the visually handicapped. This group contained 9 males and 29 females. Teachers 0; the Auditorily Handicapped Programs for the child with a hearing handicap take two forms. The first of these is the special classroom. The primary education of the child is conducted in this environment with integration into the regular classroom accomplished as soon as the child demonstrates an ability to achieve in this more competitive environment. The second is a program which utilizes a trained teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing to support the child who has a hearing handicap who is placed in a regular classroom. This teacher. referred to as a teacher-counselor. also provides support to the regular teacher through ongoing consultation. All teachers of the auditorily handicapped who participated in this study held valid Michigan teaching certificates. In addition each was a state approved teacher of deaf and hard of hearing children. This group was composed of 9 males and 20 females. 54 Spgech Correctionists The primary responsibility of the speech correctionist is the provision of evaluation. diagnosis. and therapy to pupils referred due to abnormalities of speech. voice. or language. Michigan makes provision for a reimbursed therapist for each 75 children certified as requiring the service. All correctionists participating in this study held valid Michigan teaching certificates. In addition. each was an approved speech correctionist. The speech correction group was composed of 9 males and 22 females. SELECTION OF VARIABLES The selection of variables resulted from the theoretical considerations discussed in Chapter II. The demographic data were included as a result of traditional sociological approaches to the study of group interaction. The theoretically dictated variables were those thought to have a direct relationship to the criterion variables of attitudes toward physical disability and toward education. Demographic variables chosen for study were included due to conclusions reached by researchers in sociology and attitude studies. Those chosen for study were: (a) mobility. (b) Personalism. (c) institutional satisfaction. (d) religiosity. 55 and (e) change orientation. The major variables used in the study are discussed in the following section. Attitudes Toward Physical Disability The items used in this scale were taken from the Attitude Toward Disability Scale (Yuker. et. al.. 1960). Adequate test-retest reliability scores were reported. and various construct validity measures were all collected from the disabled employees of Abilities Incorporated of New York. Among these employees the test was found to be negatively related to age and anxiety. and positively related to verbal intelligence and job satisfaction. Although the validating group may have questionable generality the scale is the only one known to be in existence and does provide an initial means of determining relationships among attitudes neld by various groups of special educators toward the physically handicapped. Modifications were made in the provisions for respondent scoring. The Likert-type format was retained. but the response categories for each item were reduced from seven to four. A further modification was made in the ATDP scale in the format of the respondent item alternatives following each question. Originally the subjects were required to transfer a number from a set of coded alternatives in response to each item. This modification was designed to simplify the response task as well as to decrease total examination time. Fifteen of the 20 attitude items are statements of differences between disabled persons and those not disabled. Agreement with these statements is interpreted as reflecting unfavorable attitudes toward the physically handicapped. In utilizing this scale with teachers of the handicapped it is reasonable to question whether disagreement is a reflection. of unfavorable attitude or a statement of fact based upon long hours of association with the handicapped. Since this is the only scale available which attempts to determine attitudes toward the disabled it was decided to include the scale in the present research. Attitudes Toward Education Modifications similar to those described above were made on the Attitudes Toward Education Scale developed by Kerlinger (Kerlinger. 1958. 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya. 1959). The scales represent a factor analysis of a set of 40 items administered to 598 subjects of varying backgrounds. but all apparently of above average education. The scales have been found to hold up under cross-validation. Friesen (1966) postulated that the items may be too complex for many people 57 and challenged the lack of inclusion of individuals of low educational achievement in the validation procedures. While his observations may be accurate they would not seem to apply to the present experimental group which is made up of individuals who have a high level of educational achievement. The education scale in its present form consists of 20 items of which 10 are indicative of "progressive" educational concepts and 10 of "traditional“ concepts. As employed in this study. the progressive and traditional items were analyzed as separate scales. For both the ATDP scale and the ATE scale an attempt was made to determine how strongly or intensely each respondent felt about his answer. The basic premise for such a measure is summarized by Suchman (1950). A simple approximation of the intensity function has been successfully attained by asking a question about intensity after each content question. One form used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer categories of ”Very strongly". ”Fairly strongly". and "Not so strongly". Repeating such a question after each content question yields a series of intensity answers. Using the same procedure as...for content answers. these are scored and each respondent is given an intensity score. The intensity scores are then cross tabulated with the content scores (Suchman. p. 219). This procedure as described by Suchman was utilized in the present study. excepting that four response categories were used instead of three. 58 Interpersonal Values In selecting the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon. 1960). two factors were considered: first. an instrument was needed which would yield scores on items that seemed logically related to the values under test in the hypotheses. those of ”asset“ orientation to others. and ”comparative” orientation to others. 0f the six sub-scales in the instrument. the one for Benevolence is described as follows: "Doing things for other people. sharing with others. helping the unfortunate. being generous“ (Gordon. 1960. p. 3). Among studies presented in a subsequent research brief. benevolence was found to correlate .49 with the nurturance score on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and negatively with achievement (-.24) and aggression (-.28) (Gordon. 1963. p. 22). It was decided on the basis of the description. the item content. and the inter—correlations with the EPPS that the Gordon benevolence value would be an adequate operationalization of the "asset value". The second value to be operationalized was that of a "comparative" orientation toward others. The Gordon manual offers the following definition for Recognition value: ”Being looked up to and admired. being considered important. attracting favorable notice. achieving recognition" (Gordon. 59 1960. p. 3). The following definition was offered for Conformity value: ”Doing what is socially correct. following regulations closely. doing what is accepted and proper. being a conformist“ (Gordon. 1960. p. 3). Leadership was defined as "Being in charge of other people. having authority over others. being in a position of leadership or power" (Gordon. 1960. p. 3). All three of these values would appear to involve rankings of others on some kind of absolute scale. either of social acceptability (Conformity). achievement (Recognition). or power (Leadership). On the basis of surface consideration of such content the Recognition and Leadership items were judged to be most representative of comparative values. Personal Contact Variablgg Personal contact variables related to contact with education and with the handicapped. These were represented by 16 items in the questionnaires. Six items sought to determine level of education. type and amount of education. gain from and enjoyment of education. and alternatives to education as a vocational choice. Eight items were utilized to determine the specific amounts and varieties of contacts with the physically handicapped. Two items measured the amount of contact with the mentally retarded and the 60 emotionally disturbed. While each of these items generated a score it is known that such single item scores are unstable and as a result the reliability of the data may be subject to question. It is felt. however. that the total N for males and females and for each of the seven disability areas is great enough to assure a randomization of error. The single item scores should be sufficient data to determine if differences among groups of special educators are present with regard to the several measures of contact with the handicapped and with education. Preferences for Personal Relationships This set of three items (PQ 22-24) was devised to help identify respondents along a traditionalémodern dimension. The predominance of affective relationships as opposed to effectively neutral relationships is supposedly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the ”Gemeinshaft". or traditional orientation (e.g.. Loomis. 1960. p. élff). Question 22 asked the respondent to indicate the approximate percent of personal interactions on the job which were with persons who were close personal friends. Question 23 asked how important it was to work with persons who were close friends. Question 24 was intended to measure diffuseness or specificity of personal interactions under the hypothesis 61 that the traditionally oriented person is more likely to have personal interactions which are diffused between job and family. or other affective nonujob interactions. "Members of the Gemeinshaft like system are likely to know each other well. their relationships are functionally diffuse in that most of the facets of human personality are revealed in the prolonged and intimate associations common to such systems" (Loomis. 1960. p. 72). Special educators. being committed to ”asset“ values (by hypothesis). being more concerned with the intrinsic valuation of the person rather than valuing him for his absolute achievements. should express a greater need for personal interactions and a greater diffuseness of interpersonal relationships. It is assumed that a comparison among groups of special educators will indicate no significant differences in preferences for personal relationships. Institutional §atisfaction A series of eight questions (PQ 33—1—8) adopted from Hyman (1955. p. 400) was utilized to determine attitudes toward institutional satisfaction. The institutions selected (schools. business. labor. government. health services. churches) were listed and an opportunity offered to indicate whether they were judged excellent. good. fair. or poor in 62 respect to how well they do their particular job in the community. Friesen (1966) postulated but was unable to confirm that individuals in special education and rehabilitation would be less satisfied with institutions than individuals from management and labor. The assumption is made herein that when different types of special educators are compared among themselves there will be no significant differences among the groups with regard to institutional satisfaction. Change Orientation Six questions (PQ 41—44. 46-47) were originally adopted from Programa Interamericano de Informacion Popular (PIIP) in Costa Rica. The respondents were asked to react to a number of statements designed to assess their attitudes in such areas as health practices. child rearing practices. birth control. automation. political leadership. and self- change. Responses were on a four point scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Friesen (1966) hypothesized that special educators would possess greater flexibility and openness to change when compared with labor and management. He was unable to confirm his hypothesis. To the extent that these questions reflect a traditional-progressive philosophy they are interesting in a comparison of attitudes held by 63 differing sub-sets of special educators. It is postulated that no difference will exist among the seven special education groups with regard to change orientation. Religiosity Three questions (PQ 20. 21. 38) were oriented toward religion. Question 20 was a statement of religious preference. Question 21 related to the importance of religion to the respondent while question 38 asked the respondent the degree to which he conformed to the rules and regulations of the church. It was postulated that no difference would exist among the special education groups relative to religiosity. Demographic Variables Respondents were asked in the PO to respond to several items which are of interest and have been found to be significant in sociological analysis. These were education (no. 28-30). occupation (no. 39). rental (no. 32). age (no. 9). sex (face sheet). marital status (no. 13). number of children (no. 14). number of siblings (no. 17. 18). home ownership (no. 31). mobility (no. 10. ll. 12). and rural—urban youth (no. 10). In the analysis not all of these variables will be used. however. each is important to the larger cross- national research project referred to earlier. 64 COLLECTION OF DATA All of the data. with the exception of a portion of the diagnostician group. were collected through the process of group administration. With this exception either the author. Dr. John E. Jordan or Dr. Eugene Friesen were present during the administration of the instruments to the various groups. The following procedures and instructions were carefully followed in each of the special education workshops utilized for data collection: (a) a statement of appreciation for the cooperation of the group. (b) a general statement of the reason for the investigation. (c) a statement of the format of the administration. (d) and an oral explanation of the various instruments. The instruments were administered in the following order: 1. Definitions of the Disability 2. Attitudes Toward Education 3; Survey of Interpersonal Values 4. Personal Questionnaire 5. Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 6. Personal Questionnaire (Handicapped Persons) 65 STATISTICAL PROCEDURES Descriptive Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark. 1964) designated as FCC I and FCC II. were used. These programs were used to compile the frequency distributions for every item. This proved to be a very useful step in selecting variables for analysis and in gaining a clinical ”feel” for the data. Spalg ppd Intensity Analysis The general procedures are discussed by Suchman (1950. Chapters 4 and 7). In working with Likert-type items. two problems arise which call for special techniques. The first is that of organizating the respondent—item matrix so that items can be dichotomdzed with the aid of visual inspection and counting. Once the items are dichotomized into 2, l_categories the second problem. common to all Guttman-type scale procedures. is that of re-ordering respondents in the order of their new total scores. and then recording the items for inspection of the resulting scale pattern. Various techniques have been proposed such as the use of specially constructed boards which employ shot to indicate item responses (Suchman. 1950. Ch. 4). A technique employing 66 no special equipment except a typewriter was suggested by waisanen (1960). which is appealing by virtue of its simplicity. While the waisanen technique was very helpful. the ”CUT” Computer program. developed by Hafterson (1964) at Michigan State University. saved numerous hours of work and avoided errors which have resulted from a longer and more tedious method. The program determined each possible cutting point as well as the number of errors involved in each cut. The dichotomized items were then scaled by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program in use with the CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University (Lingoes. 1963; Hafterson. 1964). All scales. for both content and intensity. were submitted to the same procedure. The procedure for combining the content and intensity scales is described by Suchman (1950. Ch. 7). The basic procedure is to form a matrix of scores such that total intensity scores are entered on the vertical axis and total content scores are entered on the horizontal axis. Respondents are tabulated in the resulting cells on the basis of the two total scores received for each scale: one in content. one in intensity. For each content rank. a median intensity soore is computed. The curve of intensity on content is formed by these median scores. The lowest point of the G7 curve represents the psychological "Q? point which divides favorable from unfavorable opinion or attitude (Suchman. 1950. pp. 220-223). Mean Differences Analysis For convenience of computer programing. the §_statistic was used for all testing of mean differences. even though differences between two means are usually tested by the 3. statistic. The results are the same (Edwards. 1960. p. 146). If an §,between two means is significant. inspection of the size of the two means will indicate which one is higher and thus the main contributor to the differences reflected in the 3. Since a significant §_merely shows that the variance projected in the hypothesis is greater than could be expected by chance the specific relationship between the dependent variable and the variable represented by the levels or groups must be investigated. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Edwards. 1960. p. 136ff). as extended for unequal replications by Kramer (1960). was used to investigate the extent to which a particular sub-group mean contributed to the total variance represented by the §_test. This enabled the researcher to order the group means from high to low and then to examine the "difference" between successive pairs-of-means to ascertain which one(s) did in fact statistically depart from chance at a stated level of significance. The LS routine (Ruble. Kiel. Rafter. 1966 a) was used to calculate the two-way analysis of variance statistics. The program was originally designed to handle multiple regressions and has been adapted for management of unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. In addition to the analysis of variance tables. the frequency. sums. means. standard deviations. sums of squares. and sums of squared deviations of the mean were included for each category. The approximate significance probability of the §_statistic is also included. This convenient figure enabled the researcher to know at a glance whether or not the §_was significant without referring to a table. For example. if the number printed out was .05. the level of confidence. with the appropriate degree of freedom. for a given §_would be .05. However. if ,00 was printed out. the level of confidence was to be considered to be .005 or less. Relational andzor Predictive Analyses Partial correlation is one of the outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC 3600 program at Michigan State University (Ruble. Kiel. Rafter. 1966 b). One benefit of the use of partial correlaLion is that a number of variables which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion. or dependent variable. can be examined simultaneously. Often. when a series of Pearsonian product-moment.£;§’are computed between a criterion and a set of variables considered to be predictors of the criterion. spurious conclusions may be obtained because the predictor variables are themselves interrelated. rather than directly predictive of the criterion. In a partial correlation solution to the problem these relationships among the predictor variables are taken into account in computing the true correlation of each variable with the criterion. That is. he effects of all but one variable are held constant. The use of multiple regression analysis is recommended by Ward (1962. p. 206) because it “not only reduces the dangers inherent in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before considered 'researchable'." In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter. 1966 a) a great deal of data can be gathered from one analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of specified sub—groups. or partitionings. of the data. For each specified group (e.g., total. male— female. etc.) a number of statistics can be requested. 70 Those used for each partitioning in this research project were: means and standard deviations for each variable. the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. the multiple correlations of selected variables on the criterion. the beta weights of all (i.e. those used) predictor variables. a test of significance for each beta weight. and the partial correlations between each predictor and the criterion. In actual practice. only the descriptive statistics. the zero-order correlations. the multiple correlations. and the partial correlations have been used in the analysis. Tests of significance of the correlation coefficients from zero are the usual ones. with tables entered for the appropriate degrees of freedom. Several multiple regression analyses were done. The first set of analyses used as a criterion the total raw scores from the handicapped persons scale. the second set used respectively the total raw scores on the progressive and traditional education scales. and the third set used the scores from change orientation items. 71 MAJOR RESEARCH HYPOTHESES Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores H-l: Contact — Intensity Interactions H-la: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between amount of contact with disabled persons and scores on the intensity statements of the attitude-toward-disabled persons (ATDP) scale. regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Rosenberg and Pea. and Guttman and Foa. to the effect that contact frequency is directly related to attitude intensity. regardless of content directions (see Pages'54_anngL, above). Instrumentation: Contact frequency. by a direct question. number'gDOf the Personal Questionnaire — HP (Appendix 5); ATDP intensity scores obtained through independent intensity questions following each attitude content statement (see Appendix a) . H-lb: .Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between frequency of contact with education and scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education scale. regardless of whether attitude is traditional or progressive. Hngthesis derivation: Same as H—la above. Instrumentation: Contact frequency. by a direct question. number §_of the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix'g); education intensity scores obtained as in H-la above (see Appendix A) . H—2: Contact — Frequency Interactions H-2a: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exisc between favorablw attitudes toward disabled persons and amount of contact with the disabled even when the special educators (a) have alternative rewarding opportunities. (b) enjoy the contact. and (c) can easily avoid the contact. Hypgthesis derivation: From considerations of Homan's (seo page 32above) Zotterberg (see page_4_Q_above). and various studies in special education (see pageAgLabove). Instrumentation: Attitudes toward disabled persons. by a 20 statement attitude instrument developed by Yuker. et: a1. (1960) and modified for the purposes of the present study (Appendix 3). Contact variable by direct questions in the Personal Quostionnaire--HP: frequency by question number 3, alternatives by number 2, enjoyment by number g, and avoidance by number é, H-Zb: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between high frequency of contact with education and attitudes toward education even when frequency of contact with education is concurrent (a) alternative rewarding opportunities. (b) enjoyment of the contact. and (c) oaso of avoidance of contacts. Hypgthesis dorivation: Same as H—2a above. Instrumentation: Attitudes toward education. by a 20- statement attitude instrument developed by Kerlinger (1959) and modified for the purposes of the present study. Contact variable by direct questions in the Personal Questionnaire: frequency by question number g, alternatives by number.§. enjoyment by number g, and avoidance by numboryL_. Hypgthoses Related To Attitude—Value Interactions H—3a: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores on items indicating need for power and control over others and scores on items indicating acceptance of disabled persons. H-3b: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores on items indicating need for power and control over others and scores on the measuros of progrossivo and traditional attitudes. toward education. Hypgthosis derivation: From considerations of Wright in respect to asset vs. comparative valuations of others (see pago 33 above). and of Rosenberg to the effect that the more 73 the belief content of an attitude is instrumental to value maintenance. the more favorable will be the evaluation of the object of the attitude (page JJhabove). Persons with high power needs are applying a comparative yardstick in evaluations of others and should be expected to devalue persons with disabilities as well as progressive attitudes toward education since the latter usually implies changes in the status quo. Some empirical findings of this appears in findings of Whiteman and Lockoff (1962) in respect to blind- ness and in Felty (1965). Instrumentation: Need for power and control measured by the Leadership (L) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix 5): attitudes-teward-disabled-persons. as in H-Za, and attitudes toward education as in H—Zb. H-4a: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores indicating need for recognition and achievement and scores on items measuring acceptance of disabled persons. H-4b: .Ameng the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores indicating need for recognition and achievement and measures of traditional and progressive attitudes toward education. Hypothesis derivation: Same as H-3. Instrumentation: Need for recognition and achievement measured by the Recognition (R) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix E). attitudes toward disabled persons as in H-Za. and attitudes toward education as in H-Zb. H-Sa: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores indicating need to help others and to be generous and scores indicating acceptance of disabled persons. H-Sc: Within the “total" special education group no significant differences will exist between sex and (a) the need to help others, (b) attitudes toward the disabled and (c) progressive attitudes toward education. 74 prgthesis derivation: As in H-4, but stated in terms of an asset-value orientation rather than a comparative-value orientation. Instrumentation: Need to be helpful and generous measured by the Benevolence (8) scale of the Gordon scale of Interpersonal Values (Appendix g), attitudes-towsrd-disabled~ persons as in H-2a and attitudes toward education as in H—2b. Hypgtheses Related to Characteristics of Spgcial Educators H-6a: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores on change orientation variables and scores indicating attitudes toward disabled persons. H—6b: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between scores on change orientation variables and scores on measures of traditional and progressive attitudes toward education. gypothesisyderivation: Same as H-3 above and extended to connote that high scores on change orientation represents departure from the status quo and high relationship to progressivism and concern for individual differences. Instrumentation: Change orientation measured by questions 41-46 in the PQ attitudes toward the handicapped measured as in H-Za and toward education as in H-2b. 8—7: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist in mean attitude-toward- disabled—persens scores. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Zetterberg (see pageggl, above). to the effect that high frequency of contact is positively associated with faverableness of attitude if (a) the interaction could be easily avoided, and (b) there are other rewarding activities to engage in. Instrumentation: Attitudes toward disabled persons measured as in H-Za. ~ 75 H-B: .Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist in scores on measures of Benevolence, Recggnitien. or Leadership. Hypgthesis derivation: Same as 8-3 above. Instrumentation: Same as H—3, H-4, and H-5. H-9: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant difference will exist among scores indicating either progressive or traditional attitudes toward education. Hypgthosis derivation: Same as H-3. Instrumentation: Same as H-Z. H-lO: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist on the following change orientation variables: (a) health practices, (b) child rearing practices, (c) birth control practices. Hypgthosis derivatigg: Same as H-3a, b and extended to imply that persons who score high on progressive attitudes toward education will also score high on the change orientation variables since both represent dissatisfaction with the status quo and emphasize the individual and empirical solutions to current problems. Instrumentation: A series of questions in the Personal questionnaire. H-ll: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist in mean scores indicating amount of contact with retarded and emotionally disturbed persons. gypothesis derivation: From observations that most physically handicapped children have multiple disability with retardation and emotional disturbance representing either the primary or secondary disability. In a comparison of special educators it seems reasonable to assume that a great number of contacts with the handicapped would yield similar numbers of contacts with the retarded and disturbed when the sub-sets of special educators are compared. 76 Instrumentation: Contact frequency with the mentally retarded as measured by question 2_PQ-HP and with the emotionally disturbed as measured by question lg PQ-HP. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The analysis of the data is organized into two main sections. Section 1, descriptive data on designated characteristics of the sample: Section 2. the testing of the hypothesis presented in Chapter III and comparisons of mean differences of various scores when the respondents are grouped according to (a) sex, (b) area of exceptionality, (c) contact with criterion. and (d) related indicees. Correlational relationships (zero—order, multiple,and partial) will also be presented for selected variables of the study. Section 1: Descriptive Data In this section the descriptive characteristics of the sample are presented. The data is derived from a combination of FCC I and II programs and the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program which provides a number of statistics useful for simple demographic description. Table 1 presents the two major subdivisions of the total sample: sex and area of exceptionality. Inspection of the table reveals two factors which later lead to difficulty in the interpretation of the data: tne small 77 78 number in some of the areas of exceptionality and the sex-linked character of some of the occupational groups. It is obvious that for some of the hypotheses in which sex differences are obtained, the sex composition of the teachers by area of excoptienality represents an important factor in analysis of group differences. The low number of respondents in some areas of exceptionality. especially when the sexes are separated, is not considered to be a product of inappropriate sampling. It appears rather that this is a reflection of two things: (a) most classroom teachers of exceptional children are female and, (b) the number of programs available for some disability areas is limited as a function of decreased incidence. Two groups present some concern in the analysis of the results. Only two male respondents were available among teachers of the trainable mentally handicapped making it impossible to analyze sex differences within this group of teachers. In addition, the total number of respondents in the speech correction group (31) may not be representative of the total population of speech correctionists in Michigan. 79 I msaoom madmauumm was scans I was wuwflmoae£o>sm was wcmwuwuuosmsfia I a mswusom we was: was moon I mun uuoxuoz Hmwoom was unusomoa mcwuwow> I B> oommmowvnsm xaamucoz sanmswmua I :29 cewuosunco soooam I m oomamowmcsm madman»: oanmusom I mzm a mam mm on an mm mN om mud defies mmm ma mm NN mm .om ma mm mqmzmm mm ha mu m m m N on and: Adsoa a B> m mam mun mxfi mzm me updassewumouao us some was xvm on mcwouooum mucuvaomnnu we nowusnwuuanII H manna 80 ‘Qifferences in Mean Education Income, and Age Scores by Special Education ggpups and*§g§ Table 2 presents data on education. income, and age for each of the sub-sets of special educators by group and by sex. Table 3 presents the Duncan's multiple means analysis of one of the demographic variables (education). presented in Table 2. The Duncan New Multiple Range Test (Edwards. 1960. p. 136ff), as extended for unequal replications by Kramer (1960) is used to determine the extent to which any special education sub-group contributes to the total variance represented by the §_test. Such a procedure makes it possible to order untested mean rankings from high to low and then examine the“differenco" between successive pairs-of-means to determine which one(s) do in fact statistically depart from chance at a stated level of confidence. Table 4 provides an interpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment. Each score represents a range of educational achievement and provides an ordinal scale wherein a lower score represents a lower level of attainment. Income levels were coded in an ordinal manner as well. Scores of l_annual income of less than $1000, scores of.g less than $2000, etc. 81 Table 2 --Comparison of mean differences. standard deviations. and E'statistics in respect to three demographic variables for special education personnel. Variable Occu a- N Mean Standard F Sig. of F tion Deviation 1 2 1 2 way way way way sex group sex group EMH 135 7.26 0.889 .7182 4.940 .40 .005 THE 20 6.85 1.040 DHH 31 7.23 0.884 Education BPS 38 6.97 1.304 S 32 7.03 0.740 VT 36 7.78 0.422 D 31 7.58 1.205 Untested Ranking of Means: VT(7.78)>D(7.58))EMH(7.26)>DI-IH(7.23)> s(7.03)>sps(5.97)>TIIH(6.85) Duncan Ranking of Means: VT>TMH. BPS. S, DHH, EMH, D; D>TMH. BPS, s, DHH. EMH: EMH>TMH. BPS, s; DHHDTMH, BPS. s; S)TMH: EMH 135 44.40 12.249 10.351 5.463 .005.005 TMH 20 40.75 14.052 DHH 30 38.30 12.225 Age BPS 38 35.18 13.380 5 32 31.55 11.659 VT 36 42.19 9.786 D 32 33.22 11.350 Untested Ranking of Means: EMH(44.30)>VT(42.19))TMH(40.75)) nHH(38.30))D(38.22))BPS(35.18)) S(31.S6) Duncan Ranking of Means: EMH>S; BPS; D: DHH-VT>S; BPS-THE) S-DHH)S-D>S 82 Table 2 (continued) --Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E_statistics in respect to three demographic variables for special education personnel. Variable Occu a- N Mean Standard F 4§§g. of F tion Deviation 1 2 1 2 way way way way sex group sex group EMH 135 10.45 3.979 .9282 2.037 .08 .18 TMH 20 12.05 5.155 DHH 31 11.81 4.392 Income BPS 37 10.03 4.512 S 32 9.81 3.906 VT 36 11.89 3.560 D 31 11.42 3.757 Untested Ranking of Means: TMH(12.0S))VT(11.89)>DHH(11.81)) D(11.42))EMH(10.45)>BPS(10.03)) 5(9.81) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Hearing Handicapped BPS - Visually Handicapped - Speech Handicapped Visiting Teacher — Diagnostician 651m 83 Table 3 --Duncan's new multiple range test applied to means of education scores for special education personnel. Tange of Mean (p) 2 3 4 5 C» \1 Q; o m o 0) (U U Studentized ranges for 5% test (zp)1 2.77 2.92 3.02 3.09 3.15 3.19 R'p (RI 83p 323)2 i .806 .850 .879 .899 .917 .928 Mean Differences3 -.§TMH (P7) 4.71* 1;;BPS (p6) 4.92* - 331‘»!!! (p6) 3.60* - xgps (p5) 3.55* EYT - X§.(pS) 4.38* §EMH fi;XTMH (p5) 2.42* gym f;XDHH (p4) 3.17* fip — XS_(p4) 3.08* §DHH - ETMH (P4) l.87* _ xsps (94) 2.23* gs - ngH (p3) .88* XVT - XQMH (p3) 2.74* - ggs (p3) l.15* _-_ XBPS (p3) 1.07* - XQHH (p3) 1.38* - XD (p2) 1.05* 2.26* .21 1.12* .35 .61 1Taken from Edwards (1950, p. 373). 2The square root mean square of the analysis of variance of Table 3 S =\/.848 = .291 p the range of means (2-7) 3Mean differences of columns 2-7 have been transformed into the equivalent of 2? scores for multiple means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'p value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer (1957) is: (XM - XZ) V2nzn3 ny & n3 *Significant .05 level or higher Igflgfiggél %‘ E'E' 8W§W§%§%§ '8' . fiié .?§ g I I I 32.98% AAEA fifinfi vvgv 'U (n I 33 E A 'U N v 84 Table 4 --Interpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment. Range of interval in Score Interpretation terms of years of schooling completed 1 3 years or less 0—3 inclusive 2 6 years or less 4-6 inclusive 3 9 years or less 7-9 inclusive 4 12 years or less 10—12 inclusive 5 some college 13—15 inclusive 6 college degree 7 work beyond degree 8 advanced degree Summary of Descriptive Data in Tables 2-3 Table 2 indicates no significant differences between meg: and women with regard to education. However. when the special educators are compared by group greater than chance differences do occur. Analyses of the Duncan results indicate that visiting teadaem have significantly mere education than each of the other special education groups. Diagnosticians exceed all groups other than \a'siting temhers while teachers of the educable mentally handicapped have significantly more 85 education than do teachers of the blind. speech handicappet, and tnfinable retarded children. The level of educational attainment of teachers of the deaf exceeds that of teachers of the blind, trainable retarded. and speech correctionists. Analysis of annual income resulted in no significant differences when data was analyzed by sex and by group. With regard to age, the comparison by sex indicates significant age differences. Actually the mean age of women in the total sample was 42.3 years while the mean age for men was 36.7 years. Table 2 indicates significant group differences with regard to age. The Duncan analysis reveals that teachers of educable retarded children are significantly older than are speech correctienists, teachers of the visually handicapped, diagnosticians, and teachers of the deaf. Visiting teachers are older than speech correctionists and teachers of the visually handicapped. Teachers of the trainable mentally handicapped as well as teachers of the deaf and diagnosticians are significantly elder than speech correctionists. Section 2: Hg:othes::_T§§ting, Mean Differences, and Correlatienal Analysis H-la: Amongjthe sub-sets of special educaters no significant Qifferencegywi11_exist between amount of contact with disabled persons and scores on the intensity statement of the attitude- teward-disabledepersens scalei regardless cf whether attitude content is favorable er unfavorable. 86 Table 5 represents a comparison of approximately 55 percent of all special educators having the highest intensity scores on the ATDP scale with approximately 39 percent having the lowest intensity scores. As is indicated the resulting significance of the §_statistic is not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Table 5 --Means, standard deviations, and E_$t?tistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the @TFP scale. Mean of — Sig. Variable N ATDP intensity 8.0. E_ of scale I! High Frequency of Contact 185 63.28 7.254 1.277 .26 Low Frequency of Contact 130 62.35 6.943 H-lb: .Anong the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between freguency of contact with education and scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Educatien Scale,_£sgardless of whether attitudo is traditional er progressive. Table 6 indicates that the mean differences between persons with high and low contact with education, are not significantly different on progressive intensity scores. 87 Table 6 -—Means. standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low frequency of Contact with eéucatian with intensity scores on the progressive- attitudo-toward education scale. Mean of $19. Variable N progressive S.D. E_ of Liptensity scalgg F High Frequency of Contact 118 34.34 3.07 .39 .54 Low Frequency of Contact 173 34.10 3.23 Table 7 reveals that the mean differences between high and low contact and traditional intensity scores are significant. While the nUll hypothesis cannot be rejected as it relates to progressive intensity scares it in r+jnctcd with regard to traditional intensity scores. Table 8 presents the zero-order correlations between contact scores and intensity scores on the ATDP scale and the correlations between contact scores and the intensity scores for Qg§h_progressive-attitude-toward-education scores and traditional-attitude-toward-cducation scores for each of the special groups. The correlations for males and females within each group are also given. 'V n C) f: 8 Table 7 --Means. standard deviations. and §_statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the traditional- attitude-toward-education scale. Mean of Sig. Variable N traditional S.D. g_ of intensity 2. scale High Frequency of Contact 118 32.84 3.39 .76 .01 Low Frequency of Contact 173 31.69 3.88 Table 8 indicates that no significant correlation exists between amount of contact with disabled persons and intensity scores on the ATDP scale for any special education group. Comparison of contact scores with intensity scores on the progressive education scale reveals no significant correlations. When contact scores are compared with intensity scores on the traditional education scale significant correlation is revealed for male teachers of the visually handicapped and both male and female speech correctionists. 89 Table 8 --Zero-order correlations between amount of contact with disabled persons and intensity scores on the attitude-toward-disabled-persons scales. ATDP1 Scale Education Scale Progressive Traditional r n r n r n M -.098 34 -.357 34 -.078 34 EMH F -.129 96 -.263 95 -.078 95 M2 - - - - - - TMH F .329 18 -.060 18 -.337 18 M .015 9 .013 9 .152 9 DHH F .215 20 -.445 20 .047 20 BPS F .142 28 .173 28 -.064 28 M .243 9 -.026 9 .753* 9 S F .375 21 .038 21 -.216 21 M -.l69 13 -.442 13 -.572* 13 VT F .219 23 -.486 23 -.518* 23 M -.027 17 -.282 17 -.157 17 D F -.497 15 .152 15 .368 15 1Low scores on ATDP indicate positive attitudes. 2Sample size inadequate to allow analysis. * (.05 9O H-Za: Among the sub-sets of special educators no significant differences will exist between favorable attitudes towagg disabled persons and amount of contact with the disabled even when the special educators (a) have alternative rewarding rtunities b en'o the contact and c can easil avoid the contact. As indicated by Table 9. the multiple correlation relating to the combined contact variables and positive attitudes toward the handicapped is significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. Table 9 --Mu1tip1e correlations for combined contact variables with attitudes toward disabled persons and toward education (proqressive and traditional). Variable N r Sig. 347 H.P. attitude and combined contact variable .1838 (.01 Traditional education attitude and combined contact variables .2078 (E01 Progressive education attitudes and combined contact variables .1083 (305 91 Table 10. reveals that enjoyment of the contact with the handicapped contributes most toward predicting attitudes toward handicapped persons. H-Zb: Among the sub-sets of special educators no gignificggt differences will exist between high freggency of contact with education and attitudes toward education even when freggency ‘9; contact with education is concurrent with (algalternative rewarding oppgrtunities, {bl enjoyment of the contact, and [cl ease of avoiding the contact. Table 9 indicates that the correlation between the combined contact variables and both progressive and traditional educational attitudes is significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. Attempts to partial out the factors contributing most to the correlation (Table 10) yielded no single contributor for those holding progressive attitudes toward education. Table 10, does however. reveal that amount of contact with education contributes more to the multiple correlation than other variables when attitudes toward education are traditional. Table 10 --Partial correlations between attitude-toward- handicapped-persens and attitudes toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to contact variables. Handicapped Persons Scale (Dependent) N Sig. 308 Amount of Contact r -.02 N.S. Avoidance of Contact I -.09 N.S. Enjoyment of Contact r -.14 (.05 ProgressiveeAttitudes—Teward-Education N (Dependent) 342 Amount of Contact r -.06 N.S. Enjoyment of Contact r -.05 N.S. Alternatives of Contact r -.02 N.S. Traditional-Attitudes-Teward-Education N (Dependent) 342 Amount of Contact r .20 (,01 Enjoyment of Contact r -.03 N.S. Alternatives to Contact r -.05 N.S. H-3a: Ame th sub-sets of s cial educators no si nificant differences will exist between scores on items indicatigg lged for pgwer and control over others and scores on items indicating accegtgnce of disabled pgrsen . Table 11. reveals that the significance level is not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. 93 Table 11 --Means. standard deviations. and E’statistic comparing high and low scores on leadership value and attitudes-toward-disabled-persons scores. Sig. Variable N Mean S.D. g, of L— High scores on leadership value 120 43.64 4.81 1.20 .27 Low scores on leadership value 102 44.40 5.51 H-3b: differences will exist between scores on items indicating need for pgwer and control ove£_others and gcores on the measures of r ressive and traditional attitudes toward education. As indicated by Tables 12 and 13 the differences between special educators with high scores on leadership value and those with low scores on leadership value were significant as they related to both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The null hypothesis is rejected. 94 Table 12 --Means, standard deviations, and 2 statistic comparing high and low scores on leadership value and progressive-attitude-toward-education scores. Variable N High scores on leadership value 119 Low scores on leadership value 103 Mean of Sig. Progressive S.D. g_ of Scale F 32.31 3.46 4.92 .03 31.25 3.64 Table 13 --Means. standard deviations. and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on leadership value and traditional-attitude-teward-education scores. Mean of Sig. Variable N Traditional S.D. E_ of chle F High scores on leadership value 119 24.90 4.32 9.05 .005 Low scores on leadership value 103 26.51 3.57 95 H-4a: Ame ub-se ci educ t rs si ific t recggnition and achievement and scores on items measuring gcceptance of disabled pgrsogs. Table 14 indicates that significant differences do not exist between scores indicating high and low recognition values and scores on the ATDP scale. The null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Table 14 —2Means. standard deviations, and E’statistic comparing high and low scores on recognition value and score on the attitude-toward-disabled- person-scale. Sig. Variable N Mean S.D. g, of ATDP F High scores on recognition value ‘ 112 43.98 5.19 .01 .88 Low scores on recognition value 106 44.06 4.69 differences wil exist between scores indicatin need for recggnition and achievement and measures of traditional and grggreesive attitudes togggd educatieg. Tables 15 and 16 reveal that the significance of the differences relating high and low scores on recognition values With progressive and traditional attitudes toward education is not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. 96 Table 15 -~Moans. standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on recognition value and scores on the progressive-attitude- teward-education scale. Sig. Variable N Means S.D. g_ of Frog . Ed . F High scores on recognition value 112 31.71 3.23 1.50 .22 Low scores on recognition value 108 32.27 3.48 Table 16 --Means. standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on recognition value and scores on the traditional-attitude- teward-education scale. Sig. Variable N Means S.D. g_ of Trad. Ed; F High scores on recognition value 112 25.42 3.77 2.03 .15 Low scores on recognition value 108 26.17 4.09 97 Table 17 indicates that the differences between high and low scores on benevolence values and scores on the ATDP scale are not sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 17 --Moans. standard deviation. and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on benevolence value and scores on the attitude-toward-disabled- persons scale. ~ Mean of Sig. Variable N ATDP S.D. g, of 1 Scale a ' _31 High scores on benevolence value 127 43.64 5.24 1.18 .28 Low scores on benevolence 117 44.36 5.09 H-5b: Anogg the sub-sets of epgciel educators no significant differences will exist between scores indic tin need to hel others and to be generous and attitudes toward education. Tables 18 and 19 indicate that the differences between scores on the benevolence scale and scores on the progressive and traditional attitude toward education scales are not sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 18 --Means. standard deviations and E’statistic comparing high and low scores on benevolence value and scores on the progressive-attitude— toward-education scale. Variable N High scores on benevolence value 127 Low scores on benevolence value 117 Mean of Sig. Progressive S.D. F of £9.19 F 32.19 3.62 .52 .48 31.86 3.43 Table 19 --Means. standard deviations, and F'statistic comparing high and low scores on benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude- toward-educatien scale. Variable N Mean of Seals High scores on benevolence value 127 Low scores on benevolence value 117 Sig. Traditional S.D. E, of F 25.79 3.85 .40 .53 25.47 4.16 {c1 zgggressive attitudes toggrd education. Analysis of table 20. indicates that differences between sex and need to help others is sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Differences between sex and both attitudes toward the disabled and progressive attitudes toward education are not sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 20 --Means. standard deviations. and §_statistic for- benevolence value scores. attitude-toward- disabled-persons scores. and progressive-attitude- teward education scores for males and females. Sig. Variable Sex N Mean S.D. g, of F Benevolence Male 103 18.44 5.84 4.36 .04 Female 228 20.15 7 34 Attitudes Male 106 43.56 5.37 .63 .43 Toward Female 229 44.02 4.79 Disabled Persons Progressive- Male 105 32.46 3.53 2.41 .12 Attitudes- Female 232 31.81 3.52 Toward- Education 100 Table 21 indicates that the multiple correlation between change orientation and ATDP scores is not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. When the five change variables are partialled out. as in Table 22, they make little differential contribution to the correlation. Table 21 --Multiple correlations of change orientation variables with attitude-toward-disabled-persons, and toward education (progressive and traditional). Variable N r Sig. Attitude toward disabled persons and change orientation 340 .01 N.S. Traditional education attitudes and change orientation 342 .02 N.S. Progressive education attitudes and change orientation 342 .02 N.S. H-Gb: Among the sub-sets o§;specia1 educator§;noggignifigant differences will exist between scores on change orientatigg variables and spores on measures of traditional and progressive attitude toward education. 101 As indicated in Table 21. the differences between scores on the change orientation variables and measures of both traditional and progressive attitudes toward education are not sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Table 22 --Partial correlations between attitudes-toward- disabled-peroons and attitudes toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to change orientation variables. Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons r Sig. (Dependent) Health practices -.01 N.S. Child rearing practices -.09 N.S. Birth control practices .01 N.S. Political leadership .01 N.S. Self change .02 N.S. Traditional-Attitudes-Teward-E&ucatien (Dependent) Health practices -.08 N.S. Child rearing practices -.07 N.S. Birth control practices -.02 N.S. Political leadership .00 N.S. Self change -.06 N.S. ‘Progroseive-Attitudes-Toward-Education (Dependent) Iiealth practices .01 N.S. Child rearing practices .12 (.05 Birth control practices .00 N.S. Political leadership -.03 N.S. Self change .06 N.S. ‘ 102 Summagy of zero-orde; gorrelatiens between attitudes toward tpe handicppped and values by sex and spgcipl education groups. Table 23 summarizes the relationships between attitudes toward the handicapped and values by sex and special education groups. Analysis indicates a significant positive relationship between Independence and ATDP for males within the DHH group. Among females in the Q_group there exists a significant negative relationship between ATDP and Independence. Within the same group a significant positive relationship is indicated between ATDP and Benevolence. Summagy of zero-order correlations between attitudes toward education and values by sex and spgcial education group. Table 24 summarizes the relationships between attitudes toward education and values by sex and special education group. Among both males and females in the EMH group Significant positive relationships exist between attitudes toward education and Conformity values. A significant Eissitive relationship also exists among males of the EMH Slroup between attitudes toward education and Benevolence ‘Villues. mouv « .msoum was» new pennanonn one enowueaonuoo o: onwn wanton wouwaH an usaH m4 mama mw_- mammaaafist rpmm.u ma @mn.u= ma mm. ma emw.u nausea on mh¢.I he Heo.u 5H moo. on man. on we. on hmo.I on“: a Ill.rl|4llill'llll||lulu|||llifil-l'lI-IIIIIIIIIIIII mm m¢~.- mm on.I mm FmH.I mm new. mm mom. m~ mam. onusom ma men. ma pm~.I ma Hv~. ma m¢m.- ma ehn.u ma mon.n can: a> Ill.vll4.lllllllllIIII.III|.II:.II.]IIIIIIIIIIIII'I AN men.- Hm ~mn.n Hm moo. Hm moo. Hm mao.u Hm mom. «Hagen e mm~.I a com. a mm~.I m aoo.- m moo.- m new. can: m I--?II.J..I.IJ||I.II.ITil'nu'llllulfiu'l '|"|'nlllrl.l.l.lnll hm mac. em ~¢~.I on men. em Nan. hm oH.I pm Nee. onusmm m «on. m ~H¢.I m mom. m omm.- m ma.. 3 mao.z «Has mam IllhvllilllllltllIlllllllllhrll lllllllllfllll! ma n~H.I an ~m~.I ma nan. ma pmm.- an «H. as mnm. onaeom m mmn. a mHH.I m woo». e mmn.I m v~.I a mac. one: mun llllrllnrlll.llllllfill.)Illllliw'lr'llilllllillIII ma meo.I_ ma omH.I on mac.. ma mom. we @FH.I ma own. onmsom I I I I I I I I I I I I dean: =29 lllTllnrllJIll-III.lllllllIIIAfIIVIIiIIIIIIlllllll ma mao.u mo aoH.I mm who. mm «50.- mm nHo.I ma mmn.- can-om 9... m3 . mm 30.. mm m8 ... «m o: .I mm HEN . mm as... can: can a mIIIIIm ImI, AWILIIIew, ._ m a _,I¢m a mI. Immune nouolpulflodln oosoae>osom ousoonmflmwfligdflqmmlgeucoo Ming .oasom oaas> :ownoo on» was Aucousoov oases usesnomIooansoHWIoHsBIuIeasuwuus coo3uon ncowueaonnoo HormelouoNII mm vanes 104 .mnouw Ian» new asunoeoum one ucofiuoaounou e: ”qua sameso wouafiwa on can HHo.I va.I mo~.I HmH.I oma.I omN. vmme noa.I ohm, .re. mmo.I moo. an «no camfiuh mmm. mmo.I smo. mem.I me.I mom. mmm. H~0.I med. aeo.I vam.I mmm. a sz can: m meo.I moo. ov~.- mam. FFH.I moo.I mac. mmH.Iiwwom. m¢~.I meH.I own. an Ant onEom mmm.I mvH.I hmo.I HHH. nmm.I evo.I omv. vac. nemvm. mae. NVH.I vom.I m sz can: mam I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I L I I I I mmm.Ile¢. 5mm. mmo. mnH.I nma. mmm.I mmm.I oow.¢wmm.n HON.I doa.I ma sz oamfiwm eev.Ilmmm.I moo. mom. mwm.I vvo.I ewe. own. one. amm. Ame. one. a azv can: Ema mmm.I OHH.I Hma. mam. mmv.Is‘hmm. Hma. jamm.I Hmm. mmN.I woo. mvv.I ma sz oamfiom I I I I I I I I I I I I .2. ode: A are IlullnvlnlL|l|l|IIl'I-IIIIIII Illlllll'lltlnl"l"1|l4l||| mno.I «no. 5H0. bmo. mmH.I wHo.I mmo.I moo.I «ONN. va.I mmo.I poo. mm .zv oHeEom mmo.I meo.I Neo.I «mat. mmH.I omo.I HeH.I mHN.I «Hmm. wmo.I mma.I m¢H.I mm sz saw: mzm .asne .monm «Iona ddflnm .muwa .monm .wmua "mane .uena "monm .wana .mMnm manna mannnomsoa uucoau>ocom ounowcomo‘aH sowufismouum xuwfinomnoo 05Hm> unommsm .oasom 05Hm> sconce can use Auguucouv newuoosgquum3ouIwoosuwuum coozuon enowuoaonuoo HooHoIonoNII om oHAsB mo.Vs. ov~.I om”. who.u «no.I mo~.I moo. «NH. moo. omm. a¢H.I van. omo.I on new Fm oamaom nm~.I mom. woo. oom. ¢m~.I one. mma.I Noo.IJToaom no.I omm.u o¢H.I on .2. can: a 5 O 1 'Ilnr"I-IIIII-"II"I."I.IIIII-'4Il'ill'l'II-‘slsl'lIlIIuIA'IlI-" cmo.I oo. oo.. moo. cno.I moo. ov~.I ovH.I HoN. em~.I man. 1H»¢.I mm .2. oamfium omm.I mam. ooa.I omo. moo. non. va.I moo. hoot. oom.I moo. «Hm.u on an. ode: s> .oona uuflum Twoua .moum .Uona .mflum «Iona .munm Toenaiumunm # «Cone uuunm_ . Nstwo maloHOVIOAV—OUIOHO>OIOQ ooaoflsmmowsH ammuwsmouom qnufifihounoo 09Ho> uh 5m .oamvm 09Hm> GOUHOG on» use Aucoucoov coaueunfioIpnnsoulnoosuwuum coosuon mnowumdounoo HUDHOIOHONII Avoasfiuaoov VN canoe 106 A significant negative correlation is indicated among female teachers of TMH between attitudes toward education and Recognition values. A positive significant relationship is revealed. for female teachers of THE between attitudes toward education and Independence values. Further analysis of Table 24 indicates a significant negative correlation among female teachers of DHH between attitudes toward education and Conformity values. Within the DHH group males revealed a significant negative correlation between attitudes toward education and Leadership values while the differences among females for the same relationship was also significant but positive. Among teachers of the DPS analysis of the correlation for both males and females indicates a significant positive relationship between attitudes toward education and Conformity values. Table 24 reveals a significant negative correlation between attitudes toward education and Support values for female VT's. Female VT's also indicated a significant positive correlation between attitudes toward education and Leadership values. 107 .Males within the D group indicate high negative correlations between attitudes toward education and Conformity and Recognition values. Hypgtheses related to characteristigg of special educators. H-7: Apgng the sub-sets of spgcial educators no significant differences will exist in mean-attitude-toward-disabled EIBODS scores o Table 25 indicates that differences in mean scores in the ATDP scale are not sufficient to warrant rejection of the null hypothesis. H-B: Apgng the sub-sets of gpecial educators no significapt differences will exist in scores on measures of Benevolence, Recggnition, or Leadership. Tables 26 and 27 indicate that the groups of special educators do not differ significantly on measures of Benevolence or Recognition. With regard to these variables the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. However, Table 28 does indicate a significant difference between the special education groups on scores indicating high Leadership values. An analysis of the Duncan rankings indicates that diagnosticians have significantly higher Leadership values than do either teachers of the blind and partially sighted or teachers of the educable mentally handicapped. These results are sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. 108 Table 25 —-Means. standard deviations and E’statistic comparing scores on the attitude-toward-disabled-persons scale for all special education groups. Group1 N Mean S.D. F Sig, of F ATDP 1 2 1 2 way way way way sex group sex group HMH 134 44.73 6.78 1.17 1.46 .28 .19 TMH 20 42.10 4.05 DHH 31 42.90 4.24 BPS 37 43.57 5.50 S 31 45.45 4.37 VT 36 42.61 5.40 D 32 44.81 4.73 Untested Ranking of Means: 5(45.45)> D(44.81)> EMH(44.73)> BPS (43.57)) DHH(42.90)> VT(42.61)) TMH (42.10) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 109 Table 26 --Means, standard deviations and §_statistics for Benevolence value scores for all special education groups. 1 Group N Mean S.D. F Sig. of F Benevolence 1 2 1 2 way way way way sex rou sex reu EMH 132 20.96 8.32 1.91 1.15 .16 .33 THE 20 18.65 5.86 DHH 30 17.53 6.04 BPS 36 20.05 5.35 S 32 17.25 6.27 VT 36 19.86 5.32 D 32 18.12 5.36 Untested Ranking of Means: EMH(20.96)) BPS(20.05)) VT(l9.86)> TMH(18.65)> D(18.12)) nss(17.53)) s(17.25) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 110 Table 27 --Means. standard deviations and §_statistics for Recognition value scores for all special education groups. 1 Group N Mean S.D. F Sig. of F Recognition 1 2 l 2 way way way way ex rou sex rou EMH 132 9.86 8.53 .01 1.47 .88 .19 TMH 20 11.30 4.08 DHH 30 9.43 4.00 BPS 36 10.05 4.31 S 32 12.28 4.87 VT 36 9.42 3.58 D 32 11.44 5.10 Untested Ranking of Means: S(12.28)) D(11.44)) TMH(11.30)) BPS(10.05)) EMH(9.86)) DHH(9.43)> VT(9.42) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted - Speech Correction Visiting Teachers - Diagnosticians 65o 111 Table 28 --Moans. standard deviations and §_statistics for Leadership value scores for all special education groups. Group1 N Mean S.D. F Sig. of F Leadership 1 2 1 2 way way way way sex group sex group EMH 132 10.98 9.69 2.88 2.72 .09 .01 THE 20 11.10 5.87 DHH 30 12.67 7.40 BPS 36 9.89 5.41 S 32 11.19 6.26 VT 36 12.78 7.52 D 32 15.37 6.89 Untested Ranking of Means: D(15.37)) VT(12.78)) DHH(12.67}) s(11.19)> TMH(11.10)) EMH(10.98)) BPS(9.89) Duncan Ranking of Means: D>BPS - D>EMH EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH — Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 112 H-9: Appng the pub-set. of special educators no gignificgpt differences will exist amon scores indicatin either prggressive or traditional attitudes toward education. Table 29 indicates that no significant differences exist among scores on measures of progressive attitudes toward education for the sub-sets of special educators. Table 30 reveals significant differences among scores on traditional attitudes toward education for the special education groups. The Duncan ranking indicates that significant differences exist between the TMH group and the S group. Further analysis indicates that the EMH, DHH, and BPS groups each hold significantly greater traditional education orientations than do either the S, or D groups. H-lO: Among the sub-sets of special edpcgtors ng gigpificapt differences will exist in the following change orientation variables: a health ractices b child rearin ractices, {c} birth control practices. Tables 31 and 32 indicate that no significant differences exist among the sub-sets of special educators with regard to health practice and child rearing responses. 113 Table 29 --Means, standard deviations and §_statistics for progressive-attitudes-toward-education scores for all special education groups. Group1 N Mean S.D. F S’g, of P Prog. 1 2 l 2 Ed. way way way way sex rou 89X rou EMH 134 31.92 3.56 3.60 1.36 .07 .23 THE 20 32.25 4.60 DHH 31 30.64 4.25 BPS 38 31.71 2.98 S 32 32.31 2.64 VT 36 32.34 3.66 D 32 32.78 3.13 Untested Ranking of Means: D(32.78}) VT(32.34)) S(32.31)) TMH(32.25)) EMH(31.92)) BPS(31.71)) DHH( 30.64) EMH - Bducable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 114 Table 30 --Means. standard deviations and E’statistics for traditional-attitudes-toward-education scores for all special education groups. Group1 N Moan S.D. s Sig, pt I Trad. 1 2 1 2 Ed. way way way way sex group sex gggup EH3 134 26.23 4.13 .12 2.80 .73 .01 TMH 20 26.35 2.83 DHH 31 26.16 4.40 BPS 38 26.10 3.41 S 32 23.78 3.76 VT 36 25.58 3.52 D 32 24.37 3.89 Untested Ranking of Means: TMH(26.35)> M(26.23)) DHH(26.16)) BPS(26.10)) vw(25.5a)> D(24.37x> 5(23.7s) Duncan Ranking of Means: run)s - sun)s: D - nas)s; D - ass) S: D BMH — Bducable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing .4 BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 115 Table 31 -—Means. standard deviations and g statistics for health practice responses for all special education groups. Groupl a Mean S.D. s s of s Health 1 2 1 2 Practices W‘Y W‘Y W‘Y W‘Y 88X I011 .02! 0“ ans 135 4.70 .92 .06 .59 .79 .74 was 20 4.50 1.23 ass 31 4.52 1.12 ass 38 4.47 1.08 s 32 4.53 .91 vs 36 4.72 .66 0 32 4.87 .55 Untested Ranking of Means: EMH(.92X> S(.9 TMH(1.23)) nnn(1.12)) BPS(1.081) 1x> vw(.562> 0(.55) Educable Mentally Handicapped Trainable Mentally Handicapped Deaf and Hard of Hearing Blind and Partially Sighted Speech Correction Visiting Teachers Diagnosticians 116 Table 32 --Means, standard deviations and E’statistics for child rearing practice responses for all special education groups. 1 Group1 N Mean S.D. F i of P Child 1 2 1 2 Rearing WIY W‘Y W‘Y way W sex I.“ 8 ‘1 EMH 135 4.06 1.28 .59 1.70 .45 .12 TMH 20 4.25 1.25 DHH 31 3.68 1.14 S 32 3.78 1.10 VT 36 3.58 1.23 D 32 4.12 .79 TMH(4.25)> D(4.12)) mums» BPS(3.95)) S(3.78)) DHH(3.68)) VT(3.58) Untested Ranking of Means: EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 117 Table 33 indicates significant differences among the special education groups with regard to birth control responses. The'Duncan analysis reveals that both the TMH and D groups differ significantly from the BPS and EMH groups: thus contributing most to the significance. This significance is sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. d ff 1 gpnpact with retgrded o; ometionplly disturbed pgrsgng. Table 34 indicates that significant differences do exist among the special education groups in scores indicating amount of contact with mentally retarded persons. The Duncan analysis indicates that the amount of contact of the TMH and EMH groups exceeds significantly the amount of contact with the retarded of the DHH. VT. BPS. and S groups. The D group contacts with the mentally retarded exceed m by the DHH. VT. and BPS groups at a significant level. Significant differences in amount of contact are also indicated when the S group is related to the DHH, and VT groups. Significance is also revealed when contacts of the BPS group are related to those of the DHH greup. 118 Table 33 --Means. standard deviations and §_statistics for birth control responses for all special education groups. Group1 n Moan S.D. F sis, of s Birth 1 2 l 2 Control way way way way Practices sex reu sex r u EMH 135 3.28 .93 .26 2.10 .62 .05 TMH 20 3.75 .44 DHH 30 3.30 .79 BPS 38 3.18 .77 S 32 3.22 .87 VT 36 3.42 .73 D 32 3.66 .54 Untested Ranking of Means: TMH(3.7S)) D(3.66x> VT(3.42)) DHH(3.30)) sm(3.2a)) $0.22)) BPS(3.18) Duncan Ranking of Means: mnxaps; maps; TMH)EMH: 0‘; ms 1EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 119 Table 34 --Means, standard deviations and E’statistics related to frequency of contact with the mentally retarded for all special education groups. Group1 N Mean S.D. P f F .M.R. l 2 1 2 Contact way way way way sex group pox group EMH 134 4.64 .98 .67 14.53 .42 .005 TMH 20 4.85 .37 DHH 31 2.93 1.57 BPS 37 3.81 1.31 S 32 4.09 1.30 VT 36 3.42 1.25 D 31 4.42 .88 Untested Ranking of Means: TMH(4.85[> EMH(4.64)) D(4.42)> 3(4.09)).sps(3.811> vw(3.42)) DHH(2.93) Duncan Ranking of Means: TMH)DHH: VT: BPS: S-EMH>DHH: VT: ass: S-D)DHH: VT: sps-s)osn: vs- sps)nnn 1BMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted s - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 120 Differences are obtained when the special education groups are compared with regard to the amount of contact with emotionally disturbed persons. Table 35. reveals that these differences are significant. The Duncan analysis indicates that several relationships contribute to the significance level. The D group contacts exceed significantly those of the DHH. S. and BMH groups. The VT group contacts exceed the DHH and S groups at a significant level. Both the TMH and BPS group contacts with the disturbed exceed those by the DHH group at a significant level. .The BMH group contacts exceed significantly those by the DHH and S groups. .The levels of significance are sufficient to cause rejection of the null hypothesis. Differences in mean scores on the value sub-scales by spgcial education group and sex. Three of the value sub-scales were considered in testing hypotheses 3.4 (p. 3). Table 36, 37, and 38 reveal that no significant group differences exist in mean scores on value scores of Support. Conformity, or Independence values by the sub-sets of special educators. 121 Table 35 --Means. standard deviations. and E’statistic related to frequency of contact with the emotionally disturbed for all special education groups. 1 Group N Mean S.D. F Sig, of P Emotionally l 2 1 2 Disturbed way way way way Wt 80X 1'.“ sex u EMH 134 3.43 1.61 .43 3.28 .52 .005 TMH 19 3.74 1.33 DHH 31 2.55 1.54 BPS 37 3.57 1.48 S 32 2.81 1.69 VT 36 3.78 1.40 D 31 3.81 1.33 D(3.81)) v'r(3.7su rm(3.74)> BPS(3.57)) EMH(3.43)) 5(2.a1)) nus(2.55) Untested Ranking of Means: mom; 5; EI'EI-V‘f)DHT-I ; S—TMH)DHH~ BPS>DI~IH~Ebfi-I)DHH: 3 Duncan Ranking of Means: EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH — Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS — Blind and Partially Sighted S — Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 122 Table 36 ~2Means. standard deviations. and §_statistics for support value for all special education groups. Group N Mean S.D. P Sig, o; F Support 1 2 1 2 Value W'Y V‘Y V‘Y V‘Y sex gggup sex SM! EMH 132 17.13 8.70 .00 .49 .94 .82 TMH 20 18.65 3.69 DHH 30 16.73 4.78 BPS 36 18.39 5.04 S 32 17.81 5.09 VT 36 16.03 5.55 D 32 16.37 5.22 Untested Ranking of Means: TMH(18.65)) BPS(l8.39I> S(l7.81x> EM.H(17.13)) DHH(16.73)) D(16.37)) VT(15.03) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 123 Table 37 indicates that a significant difference exists when males and females are compared with regard to Confernity value. The nean score for the male group was 12.69 eelpered with a mean score for females of 15.41. Table 37 --Heans. standard deviations. and E’statistics tor conformity value for all special education groups. Group1 N Mean S.D. I Sig. g: I Conformity l 2 l 2 Value way way way way sex r u ex EHH 132 16.57 9.37 5.96 2.07 .02 .06 THE 20 13.40 5.67 DHH 30 15.27 5.18 BPS 36 16.00 5.48 S 32 13.75 5.28 VT 36 12.92 6.41 D 32 9.56 5.80 Untested Ranking of Means: EMH(16.57)> BPS(16.00)> DH!!(15.27)) s(13.75)) Tm(13.4o)) xii-(12.92)) D(91.56) EMH - Educable Mentally Handicapped TMH - Trainable nentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT - Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians 124 Table 38 ~2Heans. standard deviations. and §_statistics for independence value for all special education groups. Group1 H Mean S.D. E 5‘3. :1 P Independ. 1 2 1 2 Value way way way way sex group sex giggg BMH 132 17.89 8.80 .51 .78 .48 .59 TMH 20 16.35 6.21 DHH 30 17.83 5.59 BPS 36 15.78 5.45 S 32 18.00 5.22 VT 36 18.25 6.02 D 32 18.16 5.16 Untested Ranking of Means: VT(1.8.25)) D(l8.16)) S(18.00)) mums”) mute”) mamas» BPS(15.78) EMH - Educablc Mentally Handicappeé TMH - Trainable Mentally Handicapped DHH - Deaf and Hard of Hearing BPS - Blind and Partially Sighted S - Speech Correction VT — Visiting Teachers D - Diagnosticians CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will be divided into three major segments. The first of these will present a discussion of the basic research hypotheses. The second segment will contain a summary of the theoretical and methodological issues. Under the latter heading there will be a summary of hypotheses construction, technical problems. sample. instruments. and analyses procedures. The final section will contain recommendations and implications for future investigations of the attitudes of special educators toward the handicapped and toward education. It should be noted that discussion in this chapter is restricted to the basic research hypotheses. Additional data were presented in Chapter IV which may be of interest to future researchers but whichhnva no relationship to the basic dissertation topic. 12S 126 Part 1: Discussion of Research Hypgtheses As stated in Chapter I the purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes of special educators toward education and physical disability utilizing technical. methodological. and theoretical concepts developed by Friesen (1966). Felty (1965). and Jordan (1961). A review of these concepts and accompanying instrumentation is contained in Part II of this chapter. The main focus of the current study was to investigate _ the relationship between interpersonal values. personal contact. attitudes. and selected demographic variables. The assumption was made that both contact and value serve as determinants of attitude. H-la, 1b attempted to determine the relationship between high and low frequency of contact with the handicapped and with education and how strongly the subjects felt about their responses to the content items of the ATDP scale and the measures of attitudes toward education. Guttman and Foa (1951). Rosenberg (1960). and Zetterberg (1963). suggested that frequency of contact with an attitude Object is directly related to attitude intensity regardless of the direction of the content. 127 Analysis of the data presented in Table 5 indicates no significant relationship between high and low frequency of contact with the handicapped and intensity of responses to the ATDP items. A comparison was made between approximately 55 percent of special educators reporting the greatest amount of contact with the handicapped and 39 percent reporting the least contact. Table 6 reveals that no significant relationship exist when scores indicating high or low frequency of contact with education are compared with corresponding intensity statements on measures of progressive-attitudes- toward-education. Pelty (1965) and Friesen (1966) reported similar non-significant relationships. Interpretation of these results is difficult. It seems apparent that the cutting point between high and low frequency of contact with both the handicapped and education is critical to the non-significant result. Since all special educators have high and similar levels of education, as indicated by Table 2. and report high frequency of contact with the handicapped the cutting point failed to reveal significant differences. Table 7 indicates that a significant difference does exist between high and low frequency of contact with education and intensity scores on the traditional—attitudes— 128 toward-education scale. The zero-order correlations between scores indicating amount of contact with the handicapped and intensity scores on measures of traditional-attitudes-toward- education are presented in Table 8. The data reveals a significant correlation for male teachers of the visually handicapped and for both male and female speech correctionists. These results indicate that in the case of speech correctionists. and male teachers of the visually handicapped a relationship does exist between amount of contact with the attitude Object and intensity statements on the measures of traditional- attitudes-toward-education. Table 2 reveals that the mean age of speech correctionists is significantly less than all other special education groups. In addition. speech correctionists have significantly less education than all groups other than teachers of the acoustically handicapped. To the extent that limited age and education in relation to other special education groups represents limited experience with the handicapped it can be argued that speech correctionists feel more positively about the handicapped than do other special education groups and feel more intensely that the beliefs they bold are correct. H-Za, 2b attempted to determine the relationship between combined contact variables and attitudes toward the handicapped and toward education. Homans (1950) and Zetterberg (1963) indicated that contact per so with an attitude object was not sufficient to result in positive attitudes. They have suggested that the contact must be accompanied by suitable alternatives and must be enjoyable. In the case of the present study the availability of alternatives is interpreted as volitional contact with the handicapped and with education. Table 9 indicates a significant positive correlation between the combined contact variables (amount of contact. ease of avoidance of the contact. enjoyment of contact) and favorable attitudes toward the handicapped. This result is in keeping with the findings of Zetterberg and others. It would appear that while amount of contact with the handicapped may result in positive attitudes toward the handicapped. ease of avoidance of the contact and enjoyment of the contact also contribute to positive attitudinal development. ‘Warren. Turner. and Brody (1964) provide further testimony to this observation. Their study revealed that limited exposure to the handicapped resulted in unchanged or negative attitudes toward disabled persons. 130 Table 9 also indicates that a significant relationship exists between both traditional and progressive attitudes toward education and the combined contact variables. Table 10 reveals that while none of the combined variables can be partialled out as contributing to progressive attitudes toward education. amount of contact with education makes the most significant contribution to traditional attitudes toward education. These results are contrary to Friesen's (1966) evaluation of the same variables for Colombia and Peru (p. 229). Enjoyment of contact with the handicapped as the most significant of the combined contact variables in shaping positive attitudes toward the handicapped is not surprising in a comparison among sub-sets of special educators. The amount of contact among all groups is great. Avoidance of contact with disabled persons is not an easy task when your profession is the training and education of the handicapped. It is reasonable to assume that the majority of the respondents indicated this to be true. It is also reasonable to assume that if the subjects did not enjoy the individuals with whom they worked they would have opportunity. as certified teachers, to teach non-handicapped students. 131 Amount of contact with education as the greatest contributor to the development of traditional attitudes toward education is more difficult to explain. The educational program for the handicapped. particularly the retarded and the physically handicapped. is in practice. traditional in nature. Due to the mental and physical limitations of the students in these programs the primary emphasis has been upon providing enough basic academic or vocational information to allow the student to compete with others following graduation. Further. the means of trans- mitting knowledge to the handicapped is and has been limited to teaching concepts that are traditionally oriented both in terms of method and goal as defined by Kerlinger (p.442). H-3 through H-S were derived from the studies of Wright (1960). Rosenberg (1960). and Whiteman and Lukoff (1962). Wright indicated that there existed an asset vs. a comparative view of handicapped people. Rosenberg posited that the more the belief content of an attitude is instrumental to value maintenance. the more favorable will be the evaluation of the object of the attitude. Whiteman and Lukoff indicated that persons with high power needs tend to apply a comparative yardstick in evaluations of others and should be expected to devalue persons with disabilities as well as progressive 132 attitudes toward education since the latter usually implies changes in the status quo. §;§g_attempted to investigate the relationship between high and low scores on Leadership value and acceptance of disabled persons. Table 11 reveals that no significant differences exist when high and low Leadership values are compared with scores on the ATDP scale. Two factors seem to contribute to the lack of significance of the result. As will be discussed later in this chapter. there exist no significant differences among the sub-sets of special educators relative to their attitudes toward disabled persons which in the case of H-3a constitutes the dependent variable. Had significant differences existed among special educators with regard to attitudes toward handicapped persons. we would have expected a greater chance for rejection of H-3a. Apparently the similarity among the respondents in terms of educational attainment. contact with the handicapped. and attitudes toward the handicapped is contributing to the lack of significance in g;;;. Secondly. it may be that the selection of the cutting point between high and low Leadership scores was such that it precluded any significant relationship between this dichotomy and attitudes toward disabled persons. Such an argument is weakened by the results of Friesen 133 (1966. p. 230) which failed to support the same hypothesis when special education personnel were compared with groups from.business and labor. It may be that the Gordon Scale items which reflect the “comparative" approach (i.e. the Leadership scale). are not discriminating enough and consequently other measures of this concept should be utilized in the future. §:§b,represented an attempt to indicate the relationship between high and low scores on Leadership values and measures of traditional and progressive education. Tables 12 and 13 indicate that special educators who scored high on Leadership value had significantly higher mean scores on both the progressive and traditional educational attitude scales. Friesen (1966. p. 231). reports similar findings for his Peruvian sample. Friesen suggests that difficulties in translation of the scales from one language to another may be responsible for the result. He further suggests that the validity and reliability of the instruments in the Peruvian setting are questionable due to the fact that many of his respondents had never before filled out a questionnaire. Neither of these observations tend to explain the results obtained in the present study. Obviously no problems of concept equivalence exist here and none of 134 the respondents could be judged as not having had appreciable experience with the form of the instruments. Two factors would seem to have influenced the relation- ship between high Leadership scores and significant mean differences on both the progressive and traditional education attitude scales. The first of these is discussed in relation to 1:}; (see page 132). The cutting point between high and low Leadership scores would seem to play a part in the results reported here. The second observation appears more critical in terms of explaining the rejection of the null hypothesis. Analysis of Tables 29 and 30 reveals significant differences among the sub-sets of special educators on 223;, the traditional and progressive education scales. Friesen (1966. p. 141) reports similar results. It appears that classroom teachers score high on the traditional education scale while itinerant special education personnel score high on the progressive educational scale. In addition. analysis of Table 28 indicates significant group differences between sub-sets of special educators and corresponding Leadership value scores. The Duncan analysis of the results (Table 28). inéicates that differences existing between diagnosticians and teachers of the blind and partially sighted as well as teachern of the eflucable 13S mentally handicapped contribute most to the significance of the difference. No other significant differences exist between the groups of special educators and their Leadership value scores. In selecting the cutting point for the analysis of high and low scores on Leadership value items in relation to traditional education scores it appears that itinerant special education personnel i.e.: speech correctionists. social workers. and diagnosticians. constitute the high group while classroom teachers of the handicapped i.e.: blind. deaf. and retarded. make up the low group;consequently significant relationships become apparent. It would appear from the above discussion that at least some educators i.e.: diagnosticians. achieve significantly higher Leadership value scores than do teachers of educable retarded children and teachers of the visually handicapped. Further. it appears that while itinerant special education personnel score higher on measures of progressive education. classroom teachers of the handicapped score highest on traditional education items. Further discussion of these relationships is contained in the analysis of §;l. gzg; represents an analysis of the relationship between scores indicating a need for recognition and achievement and scores indicating acceptance of disabled persons. 136 Table 14 indicates that significant differences do not exist between scores indicating high and low Recognition values and scores on the ATDP scale. Analysis of these data is difficult. The level of significance (.88) suggests that this relationship has little predictive value. Special educators scoring high on need for recognition and achievement do not have less acceptance of the handicapped than do special educators scoring low on need for recognition and achievement. Table 25 indicates that no significant differences exist among the sub-sets of special educators on scores indicating acceptance of disabled persons. Table 27 indicates a similar non-significant relationship among the sub-sets of special educators when scores on the Recognition scale are compared. These tables also indicate that no significant differences exists when special educators are compared by sex. In light of these findings it seems that one would not anticipate a significant relationship to exist when high and low scores are compared. It also appears that the range of scores on the Recognition value scale was limited thus revealing no significant differences. §:22_related high and low scores on measures indicating need for recognition and achievement with measures of traditional and progressive attitudes toward education. 137 Tables 15 and 16 indicate that no significant relation- ship exists between individuals scoring high or low on the Recognition value scale and their scores on either the progressive or traditional attitudes toward education scale. It appears that the range of scores indicating Recognition values of special educators was too narrow to reveal significant relationships. It would appear that any comparison among sub-sets of special educators must take into consideration the progressive education leanings of itinerant personnel and the traditional education leanings of classroom teachers of the handicapped. H-Sa. b attempted to determine the relationships between individuals scoring high on items measuring the need to help others and to be generous with scores on measures of acceptance of disabled persons as well as measures of progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The hypotheses were derived from the same sources as H—3aI b but were stated in terms of an asset-value orientation rather than a comparative value orientation. Table 17. 18 and 19 reveal that no significant fiffcrenccs ex1st between individuals scoring high on Benevolence value and their attitudes toward disabled persons. progressive education. or traditional education. 138 As has been indicated with regard to measures of Recognition values (see page 137). the range of scores on Benevolence value is too narrow to result in significant differences. H-Sc was directed at determination of sex differences in relation to: (a) the need to help others, (b) attitudes toward the disabled, and (c) attitudes toward education. Table 20 indicates that no significant sex differences exist when scores of males and females are compared on the ATDP scale and the measures of progressive-attitudes-toward education. Neither of these results is unexpected but the latter is interesting. Since significant differences do exist on progressive-attitudos-toward education when the sub-sets of special educators are compared the absence of sex differences tends to support the earlier observation that differences in scores on progressive and traditional measures of education are related to specific types of special educators rather than to sex or to special educators generally. Table 20 also reveals that significant differences do exist when scores of males and females are compared on measures of Benevolence. The result is not surprising. Ours is a society in which we expect the female to be more benevolent. Our culture is such that, from an early age, 139 the male is not expected to be demonstrative or to reveal emotion. In addition, our university training programs attempt to instill in special educators a fundamental objectivity when relating to the handicapped. Such objectivity seems most related to the disciplines of social work, speech correction, and psychology from which the majority of the present male sample is derived. §:§; attempted to determine the relationship between scores on selected change orientation items and scores on the ATDP scale. g;§b'represonted an attempt to determine the relationship between scores on the change orientation items and scores on measures of progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The hypotheses were derived from those studies indicated under H-3aI b and extended to connote that high scores on change orientation represent departure from the status quo and high relationship to progressivism and concern for individual differences. Table 21 reveals that the multiple correlation between change orientation and ATDP scores was not significant. When the six change variables were partialled out, as indicated by Table 22, they made little differential contribution to the multiple correlation. 140 Pelty (1965) first suggested that attitudes toward change might have a salient relationship to attitudes toward education and toward the handicapped. Friesen (1966, pp.‘ 157-158) included six change oriented variables in his study in an attempt to test Felty's observations. Friesea indicated that a significant relationship existed between ATDP scores and change oriented items in Peru and progressive-educational attitudes and change oriented items in Colombia. He also indicated that, while not significant. there was a relatively high relationship between progressive-educational-attitudes and change oriented items in Peru (pp. 232-333). As has been indicated no significant relationships were revealed in the present study with regard to scores on change oriented items and scores on measures of attitudes toward education or toward the handicapped. It is interesting to note that all correlations between change orientation items and traditiona1-attitudes-toward education were negative with the exception of the political leadership item. All correlations between the change oriented items and progressive- attitudes-toward education were positive with the exception of the political leadership item. While it is difficult to interpret these data it would seem reasonable to assume that the direction of the results support Felty's (1965) 141 observation that high change orientation scores may represent a willingness or desire to reject the status quo and that individuals who feel that way will generally hold more progressive attitudes toward education and toward the handicapped. It would also follow that individuals expressing satisfaction with current conditions would be traditionally oriented with regard to the attitudes they hold toward education and thus less willing to change. This might account for the negative correlations between change orientation and traditional educational attitudes as well as the positive relationships between the change oriented factors and measures of progressive attitudes toward education. §;1 attempted to determine the relationships among the sub-sets of special educators with regard to their attitudes toward handicapped persons. The hypothesis was derived from considerations of Zetterberg (1963) who indicated that high frequency of contact with the handicapped is associated with positive attitude if (a) the interaction could easily be avoided: and (b) there were other rewarding activities to engage in. Table 25 reveals that no significant differences exist among the sub-sets of special educators on scores indicating acceptance of disabled persons. The table also indicates 142 that no significant differences exist when the "total" special education group is analyzed by sex. These results are not surprising. We may assume that all special educators in this sample voluntarily relate to the handicapped. Since each subject has a teaching certificate or its equivalent he also has alternatives to interaction with the handicapped. Any negativism among individuals in the total group should be randomized when the sub-groups are analyzed hence it would seem reasonable that differences in mean scores on the ATDP scale would not be significant. The untested ranking of means indicates that speech correctionists and diagnosticians have the least accepting attitudes toward the handicapped while visiting teachers and those who instruct the trainable mentally handicapped seem to be most accepting of the handicapped. ‘§;§_attempted to determine the relationship between the value scores on attributes of Benevolence, Recognition, and Leadership, for each special education group and for males and females in the ”total” special education sample. The derivation of the hypothesis is the same as that indicated for H-3a, b above. Tables 26 and 27 indicate that no significant relationship exists among the special education groups on scores indicating Benevolence and Recognition values. The tables also indicate 143 that among the ”total” special education group no significant relationships exist in value scores on the same items for males and females. It is usually assumed that one of the motivating factors for entry into the broad area of special education is a desire to help others particularily those viewed as being less fortunate than ourselves. For the purposes of this study the Benevolence value measure proposed by Gordon (1960), and defined in Chapter I.was utilised to measure the extent to which special educators desired to help others. While Table 26 indicated that differences in Benevolence values among the subnsets of special educators were not significant it is interesting to see if special educators are more Benevolent value oriented than other groups. Gordon (1963) reports mean scores for 29 adult groups on the Benevolence scale. The special education group (3MB) showing the highest mean scores on the Benevolence scale (20.96) was exceeded by only one of the 29 adult groups reported by Gordon. The special education group (5) having the lowest mean score on the Benevolence value scale was exceeded by only 4 of the 29 adult groups reported by Gordon. By inspection we can conclude that special educators tend not to differ significantly among themselves with regard 144 to Benevolence values but tend to exceed most other groups in terms of the importance of Benevolence values. Table 27 reveals that the speech correction group had the highest mean score (12.28) on the Recognition value scale. This mean score is exceeded by 10 of Gordon's 29 adult groups. Visiting teachers had the lowest mean score (9.42) on the same scale. The (VT) mean score was exceeded by 26 of Gordon's 29 adult groups. It appears that while the sub-sets of special educators have similar Recognition values the desire of the total special education group to be looked up to or admired or to be considered important is not obviously greater, if as great, as other adult groups in our society. Table 28 indicates that significant differences do exist in scores indicating the importance of Leadership value among the sub-sets of special educators. When males and females within the total special education group are compared on Leadership value scores no significant differences are indicated. For purposes of this study Leadership value was defined as “being in charge of other people. having authority over others. being in a position of leadership or power". The sole of the diagnostician in Michigan is such that he often 145 operates independent of any administrative authority. For the most part he is roquirod to identify and evaluate the intellectual abilities of students having academic difficulty in the school society. Upon his recommendation children are rotained in rogular classrooms or are placed in special programs for the rotarded. Be not only assumes a great rosponsibility for the education of the rotarded but is most often encouraged to do so in the absence of any other administrative authority. This may explain in part the groat emphasis placed upon Leadership value by diagnosticians as a group. Teachers of the blind and partially sighted as woll as teachers of the educable mentally handicapped are usually denied the opportunity of operating independently of administrative authority since they are tied to the classroom and generally havo their programs dictated to them by school principals and the natural limitations of their students. Another possible explanation of the diagnosticians high rogard for Leadership values was presented in Table 2 which rovoalod that as a group they have significantly more education than all other special education groups. This might be interpreted as a sign of upward mobility which is generally reflected in Leadership drive. 146 It is interesting to note that the high mean Leadership value score of the diagnosticians (15.37) is exceeded by 20 of Gordon's (1963) 29 adult groups. The lowest mean score (9.89) recorded for the BPS group was exceeded by 27 of Gordon's 29 groups. It would appear that while diagnosticians recorded a significantly higher Leadership value score when compared to other special educators their need for power and authority is exceeded by many other adult groups. Special educators would not appear, as a group. to possess high Leadership values when compared with non-special educators. l§;g_attempted to determine the relationship existing among the sub-sets of special educators with regard to both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The hypothesis was derived as for H-3a, b. Table 29 reveals that no significant differences exist among the scores on measures of progressive attitudes toward education. Table 29 also indicates that no significant differences exist when the scores for males and females within the total special education group are compared on the same measure . Table 30 indicates significant group differences among scores on traditional attitudes toward education but no 147 significant sex differences. The Duncan rankings presented in Table 30 reveal that significant differences exist between the TMH group and the 8 group. Further analyses indicates that the EMH, DHH, and BPS groups each hold significantly greater traditional education orientations than do either the S or D groups. In the case of progressive attitudes toward education a direction is quite clear although differences in scores proved not to be significant. The itinerant special education personnel (D. VT. 5) had the highest scores while classroom teachers ranked below them.on measures of progressive attitudes toward education. The results presented in Table 30 present just the opposite picture. The classroom teachers of the handicapped (TMH. EH8. DHH. BPS) had the highest scores on measures of traditional attitude toward education while the itinerant special education personnel ranked below them. In this case the differences in group scores were significant. One possible explanation of these results involves an analysis of the type of program or service offered by each of the special education groups (see Chapter I for a description of each program). Essentially diagnosticians, 148 visiting teachers. and speech correctionists move to the children needing their services and usually serve more than one school within the school district. Further. they have no direct responsibility for the education of the students they serve. The task of instruction is in the hands of regular or special education teachers. In the case of each of the three itinerant services it may be said that these professionals have only limited contact with the handicapped regardless of the frequency of the contact. The students are usually seen by these special educators only once or twice a week and then for a limited period of time. Such limited exposure would tend to minimize the development of any negative attitudes toward any single disability or individual. Since the task of each of these itinerant groups is direct service to children, plus consultation to regular and special educators. their perception of the adequacy of existing programs may be considered to be basically negative. Since most programs for the handicapped can be best described as traditionally oriented the negativism of the itinerant personnel may be expressed as anti-traditional or pro-progressive as it relates to existing education programs. 149 The classroom teachers of the handicapped, on the other hand. are faced with the problems of daily instruction of students with very real limitations. This may dispose them to utilize a traditional educational approach to learning. mastery of basic academic skills is the measuring stick with which progress is evaluated. The success of the special education program seems to depend in large part, upon the ability of the handicapped to do as well as their “normal” peers. thus traditional approaches seem.justified and do provide opportunities for quantative comparison of the handicapped with the normal. In most cases. any thought of more progressive types of programming and hence modifications of attitudes toward education generally. must be set aside by the classroom teachers so that the task of keeping their handicapped pupils as near normal as possible can continue. Other factors which may have a bearing on the itinerant— progressive, classroomrtraditional dichotomy are amount of education and age. Table 2 indicates that the diagnostician and visiting teacher groups tend to be better educated and younger than most classroom groups. This indicates that itinerant personnel have been more recently associated with 150 institutions of higher learning and have less actual teaching experience than do classroom teachers of the handicapped. These factors may account, in part. for a more progressive educational orientation on the part of itinerant personnel as well as a more traditienal orientation on the part of classroom teachers of the handicapped. §:;Q,attempted to determine if special education group differences existed with regard to selected change oriented variables. Table 21 indicated that the differences between scores on the change oriented variables and measures of both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education were not significant. It had been postulated that those who scored high on measures of progressive attitudes toward education would also score high on the change oriented variables thus indicating a rejection of the status quo. Tables 31 and 32 indicate no significant group or sex differences when the sub-sets of special educators are compared on scores obtained for the change orientation factors of health practices and child rearing practices. It is interesting. however. that the itinerant special educators (S. VT, D) who scored highest on the measures of progressive attitudes toward education scored lowest on the 151 health practices responses and with the exception of the (D) group on the child rearing practices question as well. Such a result tends to cause rejection of a theory which relates progressive attitudes toward education with dissatisfaction with the status quo. It appears that the converse may be true at least as it relates to special educators. It may be that classroom teachers of the handicapped who tend to held more conservative or traditional educational beliefs see a child's environment as a deterrent to the child's success and hence the teacher's success. Expression of this feeling could well take the form of dissatisfaction with current health practices and child rearing practices. It should be remembered that no significant differences existed among sub groups in the health and child rearing practice responses hence it is necessary that we look at the direction of the responses reported in Tables 31 and 32. Table 33 indicates that significant differences do exist among the special education groups with regard to scores on the birth control change variable. The table further indicates that when the total group is analyzed according to males and females there are no significant differences. The Duncan ranking reveals that both the (TMH) and (D) groups 152 differ significantly from the (DPS) and (EH8) groups thus contributing most to the significance of the difference. It is first of all interesting to note that each of these groups with the exception of the diagnosticians is made up primarily of female teachers. Since Table 33 indicates no sex differences when the total special education group is analyzed in relation to birth control responses it would seem that some of the differences may be related to the types of handicapped children served by the special educators.. Teachers of trainable mentally handicapped children as well as diagnosticians may perceive birth control as an effective means of mdnimdzing the numbers of individuals who may be born severely mentally retarded. Since many of these children are clinical types and since heredity represents an import etiological factor such an argument would seem tenable. Hereditary factors, on the other hand, are not considered primary to the cause of educable retardation or visual disability. Another factor which may play a part in significant differences in attitudes toward birth control practices is the limitation a disability places upon the handicapped. Teachers of trainable children and diagnosticians may perceive severe retardation as totally limiting since 153 generally such children must be institutionalized at some time during their lives and at best must have constant adult leadership and supervision. Neither the visually handicapped or educable retarded individual is generally perceived, by his teachers, as possessing a disability that will prevent him.from sustaining himself and making a contribution to society. ‘§:;;,attempted to determine if differences existed among the sub-sets of special educators with regard to the amount of contacts with retarded and emotionally disturbed persons. The hypothesis was derived from the observation that many physically handicapped children have multiple disabilities with retardation and emotional disturbance representing either the primary or secondary disability. It was inferred that the frequency of occurrence of multiple disabilities among the physically handicapped might be reflected in non-significant differences in the amount of contact with the retarded and with the emotionally disturbed reported by the sub-sets of special educators. Table 34 revealed that significant differences did exist among the special education groups in amount of reported contact with the retarded. The Duncan analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in amount of 154 contact when the (TMH) and (EMH) groups were compared. Both the (EMH) and (THE) groups reported significantly greater contact with the retarded than all other groups with the exception of the (D) group. One interesting result was the fact that no significant difference existed in amount of contact with the retarded when the (D) and (S) groups were compared. The (S) group also differed significantly from.the (DHH) and (VT) groups. It is difficult to explain these results. It may be that speech correctionists perceive many of the children they serve as being retarded. In addition, they are eXpected to offer speech therapy to the retarded child and since under Michigan law they must work with their speech groups at least twice each week the number of reported contacts with the retarded would be high. It would appear that a tabulation of the number of contacts with a given group is not. in and of itself, a useful measurement. Perhaps in addition to frequency of contact duration or intensity of the contact would be more helpful in exploring attitudes and attitude change. Table 35 presents a comparison of the amount of contact reported by each special education group with emotionally 155 disturbed persons. The reported differences in frequency of contact are significant. When males and females among the total special education group were compared with regard to amount of contact with the emotionally disturbed no significant differences were revealed. The Duncan analysis of the results of group comparisons indicated no significant differences when the (D) and (VT) groups were compared. Since the primary responsibility of the visiting teacher is to provide service to the disturbed and the primary role of the diagnostician. in Michigan. is to serve the retarded this result is somewhat surprising. One possible explanation centers around the referral method for diagnostic evaluation. It may be that many students referred to the diagnostician present emotional problems as the primary disability. In such cases each of these children would be reported as a contact with the emotionally disturbed. Another possible explanation is the perception of the retarded child by the diagnostician. Many such professionals may feel that the children they serve are emotionally disturbed as well as retarded. As was mentioned earlier. subsequent studies. may find that measures of frequency of contact with a given disability group should 156 be extended to include a measure of duration or intensity as well. Another interesting comparison of frequency of contact with the emotienally disturbed by the special education groups is revealed through the Duncan analyses. The amount of contact with the disturbed reported by the (VT) group differed significantly from only two other groups namely the (DHH) and (8) group. This result indicates that the frequency of contact reported by the (TMH). (EH8), and (BPS) groups was similar to the frequency reported by the (VT) group. One possible explanation of this result is that teachers of the retarded and the visually handicapped perceive many of their students as possessing emotional problems severe enough to be classified as emotionally disturbed. Such perceptions would result in reports of greater frequency of contact with the emotionally disturbed. Another possible explanation is that many of the students served by these special educators have in fact been diagnosed as emotionally disturbed and because of limited programming or the feeling that some physical or mental limitation is the primary obstruction to learning have been placed in classrooms for the physically handicapped or retarded. 157 Part II: Summary of the Theoretical and Methodological Issues The primary focus of the present study was an evaluation of the attitudes of sub groups of special educators toward the handicapped and toward education utilizing the methods and techniques of Pelty (1965) and Friesen (1966). A secondary purpose of the study was the collection of data on special educators in such a manner that it could be incorporated in a larger cross-cultural study.l Summary of Theory Kerlinger's theoretical model was used to study attitudes toward education. He postulates a basic dichotomy which consists of a restrictive-traditional or permissive— progressive dimension of educational attitudes. He further suggests that the sharpness of the dichotomy is dependent upon occupational role. knowledge of and experience with education as well as the perceived importance of education (Kerlinger. 1956, p. 312). The present research is based on Kerlinger's assumption that the progressive—traditional dimension of attitudes toward education generalize to attitudes in other areas. 1See footnote on page 6. 158 The theoretical framework of the present research is generally consistent with the social—psychological orientation of Wright (1961) and Meyerson (1955. 1963) as far as attitudes toward physical disability are concerned. While their interactional propositions included such concepts as self. other. reference, groups and role, the main focus of this study had to do with attitudes. values. and contact as they relate to physical disability and to education. Rosenberg (1960), Katz (1960), and Guttman and Foa (1951).' have postulated certain relationships between attitudes and values. Katz points out that people are generally more inclined to change or give up attitudes inconsistent or unrelated to central values. From this orientation, there would be an expected consistency between the basic value of equality and the more specific attitude of favorableness toward opportunities for disabled persons and toward progressive education since the latter stresses individual participation and the inherent assets of the person. With reference to physical disability, Wright, et. al. (1960) points out that values can be clustered according to whether they are derived from (a) comparisons. or from (b) intrinsic assets. One of the assumptions of the present study was that the sub-sets of special educators would view 159 the handicapped from.an asset value orientation and that this postulated orientation would generalize to favorable progressive attitudes toward education as well as favorable attitudes toward change orientation as measured by the indicees of the study. Guttman and Foe (1951) have shown that attitude intensity is related to the amount of contact with the attitude object. Zetterberg (1963) observed that attitude intensity on the favorable—unfavorable continumn is related to perceived freedom or constraint of social interaction and whether this interaction is perceived as rewarding. Attempts were made to test interaction between contact frequency and the related contact indicees of enjoyment of the contact and ease of avoidance of the contact. Summary of Hypgtheses Construction All of the hypotheses were originally constructed by either Felty (1965) or Friesen (1966). The direction of the hypotheses was altered for purposes of the present study to enable comparison among the sub-sets of special educators. 3-1 and 3-2 were designed to test the assumptions posited by Rosenberg (1960), Guttman and Foa (1951), and Zetterberg (1963). who suggested that frequency of contact with an attitude object is directly related to attitude intensity 160 regardless of the content direction. H-3 through H-S were aimed at testing the assumptions of ‘Wright et. al. (1960) which posit a differential evaluation toward others between those who hold asset oriented values and those who hold comparative values. H-6 was based upon the assumption that a significant relationship exists between progressive educational attitudes and change orientation, as well as asset orientation toward others. H—7 through H-ll were derived from the assumption that the responses of the sub-sets of special educators would not differ significantly with regard to measures of attitudes toward education, change orientation, or value orientation. It was also assumed that attitudes toward education, whether progressive or traditional. would generalize to other areas. Summary of Research Instruments The major variables of the study may be summarized as follows: attitudes toward education and physical disability as they are influenced by values, contact, and related demographic indicees. The Attitudes Toward Education Scale, develOped by Kerlinger. (Kerlinger. 1958, 196l: Kerlinger and Kaye. 1959) was used to measure both progressive and traditional 161 attitudes toward education. The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale developed by Yuker and associates (1960) was utilized to measure attitudes of the respondents toward the handicapped. Both the Kerlinger and Yuker scales were modified with a Likert-type intensity statement. This statement. containing four response alternatives. asked the respondent to indicate how strongly (i.e.. sure) he felt about his answer to the content statements of the two scales. Asset and comparative value orientations were measured by three sub-scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values developed by Gordon (1963). Asset value orientation toward others was measured by the Benevolence sub-scale which was described as “Doing things for other people. sharing with others. helping the unfortunate, being generous” (Gordon. 1963. p. 3). Comparative value orientation toward others was measured by the sub-scales of Leadership and Recognition. Leadership value was described by Gordon (1963. p. 3) as “Being in charge of other people, having authority over others. being in a position of leadership or power”. Recognition value was defined by Gordon (1963. p. 3) as “Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition.” 162 The contact frequency variable was supplemented by: enjoyment of contact. ease of avoidance of contact. and acceptable alternatives to contact for both education and physical disability. Change orientation questions and demographic variables were included in the personal questionnaire. Summary of the Sarple A detailed description of the total population is contained in Chapter III. 1. Teachers of the lducable Retarded: 34 male and 98 female teachers holding valid Michigan teaching certificates and approval as teachers of the mentally retarded. 2. Teachers of the Trainable Retarded: 2 males and 18 females meeting the same educational requirements as the educable group. 3. Visiting Teachers: 13 males and 23 females each of whom held a valid.Michigan teacher's certificate as well as approval as a visiting teacher. 4. Diagnosticians: 17 males and 15 females represented the diagnosticians group. Each participant held a valid Michigan teacher's certificate. its equivalent or membership in the Michigan Psychological Association. Each was approved by the state to serve in the capacity of diagnostician. 163 5. Teachers of the Visually Handicappgd: 9 males and 29 females who were certified teachers and approved to work with blind and partially sighted students. 6. Teachers of the Auditorialy Handicappgd: 9 males and 20 females who were certified and approved as teachers of the deaf and hard of hearing children. 7. Spgech Correctionists: 9 males and 22 females who were certified as teachers and held Michigan approval to work with speech handicapped school children. Summary of Statistical Procedures Two frequency programs designated FCC I and FCC II were used to compile the frequency distributions of each respondent for every item. Scale and intensity analysis was attempted. The items were dichotomized by the ”CUT" computer program developed by Hafterson (1964). The dichotomizcd items were then scaled by the Multiple Scalogram analysis program in use with the CDC 3600 computer at Michigan State University (Lingocs. 1963: Hafterson. 1964). All scales were submitted to the same procedure. Since the items did not scale for content, intensity scaling was omitted. The L5 routine (Ruble. Kiel. Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate the two-way analysis of variance statistics. The 164 program. also originally designed to handle multiple regressions. was adapted for the management of unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. Zero-order as well as partial and multiple correlations were also used (CDC 3600 MDSTAT. Ruble and Rafter. 1966). These programs have been written to handle missing data in such a way that correlations are based only on repondonts who answered both indicated items. Part III: Recommendatigns and Implications Recommendation! Relating to the Instruments Difficulty was encountered on the intensity measures of the ATDP scale as well as the two education scales. The Likert-type four item response proved less discriminating than was originally hoped. While this was undoubtedly due to the fact that the backgrounds of the respondents were so similar there would seem to be advantages to a greater range of choices in future attempts to determine the relationship existing between content responses and how strongly or surely the subjects feel about their responses. The ATDP scale developed by Yuker and associates (1960) is the most widely used instrument available which attempts to determine attitudes toward the physically handicapped. This twenty item scale contains dated response items and tends 165 to handicap better informed or experienced respondents. Question number two for example states "physically handicapped persons are just as intelligent as non-handicapped ones”. The four choice response categories ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree" offer very little room for satisfying the ambivalence created by the question. There is a tendency in responding to such questions to reduce response choices to only two i.e.: “disagree“ or "agree”. Such reduction decreases the power of the scale to effectively measure attitudes toward the physically handicapped. It is recommended that future investigators consider an expanded response scale such as would be possible by utilizing the semantic differential. The present ATDP scale would adequately lend itself to such modification. Three sub—scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon. 1960) were utilized in the present study. The Benevolence value scale was utilized as a measure of asset value orientation. The value scales of Recognition and Leadership were selected as being acceptable measures of a comparative value orientation. Failure of the present study as well as those by Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) to show the predicted relationship between high power needs, progressivism, and comparative value orientation should result 166 in a review of the hypotheses or the measures of value orientation. It is suggested that the Recognition value scale and the Leadership value scale are not equal measures of a single segment of the value domain. For purposes of future investigations it would seem as though the Leadership value scale could be considered an appropriate measure of a comparative value orientation. Future investigators should also consider the possibility of other value scale approaches to measuring the asset-comparative dimension. Recommendations Relating to Sample Selection The sample selected for the present study is considered adequate and representative of the groups of special educators currently employed in the State of Michigan. There were obvious difficulties imposed by the similar backgrounds of the respondents. Education, age, and experience were too closely related to assure detection of differences in value orientation, contact with the handicapped, and intensity of responses. It was indicated earlier (Chapter I) that no study had been located which attempted a comparison of sub-groups of special educators. The present study provides much information relative to special educators which was not previously available. This, in part, is 167 proper justification for the study, however, much information is still required comparing special educators with other educators, administrators, social workers, parents of the handicapped, and employers of the handicapped. Such comparisons are vital to the examinations of differences in value systems of those individuals most closely associated with the destiny of the handicapped members of our society. Recommendations Relating to Analysis Procedures Priesen (1966. p. 253) recommended the utilization of a design which would allow analysis of the interaction between occupational groups and sex. The present study employed a two-way analysis of variance design which proved quite satisfactory for that purpose. It is recommended that future studies employ this statistical procedure. The author is in agreement with Friesen (1966) who recommended that future studies should examine the curvulinar vs. linear nature of proposed correlational relationships. The present study was in its final stages when this suggestion was made and so was unable to incorporate the recommendation. Recommendations for Future Research The findings of the present study in relating content responses to the intensity with which attitudes are held are 168 not conclusive. Even though it has been suggested that the instruments may have precluded more significant results it is recommended that this relationship be studied in greater detail. The relationship between content response and intensity of response would seem to be important in modification of attitudes. A determination of the significance of the relationship would prove of value in teacher training programs as well as in modifying the attitudes of prospoctive employers or the public generally in order to assure greater acceptance of the handicapped. The existing relationships between attitudes toward the handicapped and attitudes toward education proved inconclusive in the present study. It was hypothesized that individuals who were most accepting of the handicapped would hold attitudes toward education that were essentially progressive in nature. Individuals less accepting of the handicapped, :tt was hypothesized, would hold more traditional attitudes toward education. It appears that among special educators tlae types of handicapped individuals served play a great part 111 shaping attitudes toward education as well as toward the hllndicapped. Future studies should seek to determine attitudes “3 students at the time they declare an interest in some area .f special education and prior to extensive contact with the 169 handicapped in order to determine if the attitudes held by an individual determine his area of interest or whether continued contact with the handicapped tends to modify previously held attitudes. Finally, it is essential. as recommended earlier that other groups be studied in relation to special educators. It is suggested that parents of the handicapped, regular classroom teachers. admdnistrators, school board members. and employers'bo among those groups studied since the individuals in these groups to a great extent determine the future of the handicapped in our society. REFERENCES 170 REFERENCES Ackorman. N. W. Family study and treatment. Children VIII. JulyeAug.. 1961. pp. 130-134. Adans.R.Ii Problems encountered by parents of deaf children. Ant: Ran: DORE. 1962' 107p ppo 544-556o Allport. F. H. Theories of Perception and the Concept o; §trucpu£p. New York: Wiley. 1955. Allport. G. W. 2;; Hatprg pf Projudicp. Garden City. R. Y.: Doubloday 5 Co.. Inc.. 1958. Anderson, Alice V. Oriontating parents to a clinic for the retarded. Childrep. vol. 9. Sept.-Oct.. 1962, p. 178. Anderson. L. R.. a Fishloin. M. Prediction of attitude from the number. strength, and evaluative aspects of belief about the attitude object. A comparison of summation and conguity theories. J. Pars, & soc. Psychol.. Vol. 2, No. 3. 1964. pp. 437-443. Andry. R. G. Faulty paternal and maternal child relationships. affection and delinquency. British J. Dolingp.. Vol. 8. 1957 0 pp o 34-‘8 o Appoll. M. J.. Williams, C. M.. & Fisholl. K. N. Changes in attitudes of parents of retarded children affected! through group counseling. Amer. J. ment. Def.. May. 1964. pp. 807-812. Arnholtor. E. G. Attitudes toward the disabled. Rehabilit. counsela Bull.. Vol. 6. No. 1. March. 1963, pp. 26-30. Auerbach. Aline B. Group education for parents of the handicapped. Children. Vol. 8. July. 1961. Babbitt. P. H. Appraisal of parental attitudes. g, Rehabilit.. Vol. xxx, No. 1. Jan.-Peb.. 1964. pp. 20-21. Baldwin. W. D. The social position of the educable mentally retarded child in the regular grades in the public schools. Except. Child.. 1958, 25, pp. 106-108. 171 172 Barker. R. G. The social psychology of physical disability. J, sec. Issues. Vol. 4. No. 4. 1948. pp. 28-38. Barker. R. G.. Wright. Beatrice. & Gonick. Nollie R. Adjustment to physical handicap and illness. Bull. No. 55. 1946. soc, Sci, Res, Council. Barker. R. G.. Wright. B. A.. Meyerson. L.. & Gonick. M. R. Adjustment to physical handicap and illness. socI fici. Res. Council. New York. 1953. Barbe. W. B. A study of the family background of the gifted. JI §duc, Psychol.. 1956. 47. pp. 302-309. Barbe. W. B.. & Chambers. N. 5. Career requirements of gifted elementary children and their parents. Vpc, Guid= Qpart.. Baron. R. N. A cognitive model of attitude change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. 1963. Barsch. R. H. Explanations offered by parents and siblings of brain-damaged children. Except. Child.. Jan.. 1961. Bateman. Barbara. Sighted children's perceptions of blind children's abilities. Except. Child.. Vol. 29. No. 1. Sept.. 1962. pp. 42-46. Baum. Marian H. Some dynamdc factors affecting family adjustment to the handicapped child. Except= Child.. Beck. Helen L. Parents of retarded children. Children. Vol. XI. No. 6. Nov.-Dec.. 1959. p. 225. Beck. Helen L. Casework with parents of a mentally retarded child. .Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.. 32. 5. October. 1962.. Becker. H. Through Values to Social Interpretation. Ch. 1, Duke University Press. North Carolina. 1950. pp. 3-92. 173 Belinkoff. Cornelia. Community attitudes toward mental retardation. 553;, JI ment= pggic.. 1961. p. 221. Bem. D. J. An experimental analysis of beliefs and attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Muchigan. 1964. Benney. C.. & Peck. H. B. The fwmily as a factor in the rehabilitation of the mentally ill. mentg Eyg., July, 1963. 47. pp. 372-379. Bennis. G.. Benne. K. D.. & Chin. R. (Eds.). The Planning of Change. Holt. Rinehart & Winston. New‘YOrk. 1961. Berg. I. A. Cultural trends and the task of psychology. §g§;‘_gp¥§hplpg;§§.‘Vol. 20. NO. 3. March. 1965. Berreman. J. Some implications of research in the social psychology of physical disability. Except. Child.. May. 1954. 20. PP. 347-350. 356-357. Presented at the western Regional Meeting of the International Council for Exceptional Children. Portland. Oregon. November 4. 1953. Better. M. An analysis of attitude modifications toward educational assumptions by prospective secondary teachers in a teacher training program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University. 1963. Bice. H. V.. & Miller. Else. A. Parents are members of the cerebral palsy team. Let's Think It Through. United Cerebral Palsy.Assoc.. Inc.. New York. 1957. pp. 5-6. Billings. Helen K. An exploratory study of the attitudes of non-crippled children toward crippled children in three selected elementary schools. J, egp, Educ,. Summer. 1963. 31. pp. 381-387. Bitter. J. A. An experimental study of the effectiveness of a parent education program for parents of severely mentally retarded children as measured by attitude change. Unpublished Master's Paper. University of Wisconsin. Milwaukee. 1962. Blatt. A. Group therapy with parents of severely retarded children: A preliminary report. Group Psychother.. Vol. 10. 174 Blatt. B. The physical. personality. and academic status of children who are mentally retarded and attending special classes as compared with children who are mentally retarded and not attending regular classes. March. 1958. 62. pp. 8-10-818. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. Bledroe. c.w. for parents looking ahead to future mobility needs of their blind children. int, J, Educ, Blind. Vbl. 8. October. 1963. pp. 13-16. Block. J. R.. a Yuker. B. E. Correlates of an intellectual orientation among college students. Proceedings of the 73rd Annual Convention of the American Physiological Assoc.. 1965. Block. W. E. A study of somatopsychological relationships in cerebral palsied children. J. Except, Child.. May. 1954. 20. (a). ppe 347-350e Bloom. W. .Attitudes of mentally retarded students identified by education level. ethnic group. sex. and socio-economic class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas. 1964. Blum. Lucille H. Net all are definitely defective. ment. §y9.. 1958. 42. pp. 211-223. Boles. G. Personality factors in mothers of cerebral palsied children. genet, Psxchol, Monggr.. 1959. pp. 59-218. Bowden. A. O. Change...the test of teaching. Sch. & Soc.. 193‘. 400 ppe 133-136e Braddock. Mary J. Integrating deaf and hard of hearing students. Vblta Rev.. vol. 64. 1962. pp. 500-501, Bradt. Margit I. Attitudes of university students toward exceptional children. and special education. Except, Child.. April. 1957. p. 387. Brown. M. D. A comparative study of_attitudes and opinions among selected groups in two Michigan cities with authoritiative judgments concerning occupational and technical education in community colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Michigan. 1964. 175 Browne. W.. Mally. M.. a Kane. R. Psychosocial aspects of hemophilia children and their families. Amer. g, Orthopsychiat.. October. 1960. 30. pp. 730-740. Butler. & Guthrie. Correlates of self-attitudes of retardates. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. vol. 67. Amer. Assoc. of ment. Defic.. N. Y.. pp. 549-555. Cain. L. P. The teacher of the handicapped child. Education. 69. PP. 275-279. Caldwell. a Guze. A study of the adjustment of parents and siblings of institutionalized and non-institutionalized retarded children. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. Vol. 64. 1960. California Department of Education. Parent attitudes in rearing mentally retarded children. Sacramento. 1962. pp. 78-87. Carlson. E. R. Attitude change through modification of attitude structure. J, abnorm. soc. Psychol.. Vol. 52. 1956. pp. 256-261. Carr. Lola B. Preschool blind children and their parents. Children. V01. 2. No. 3. May-June. 1955. Cartwright. D. Some principles of mass persuasion. Human Relat.. Vol. 2. 1949. pp. 253-268. Cappa. D.. & Schubert. D. G. Do parents help gifted children read? J, Educ, Res.. Vol. 56. Sept.. 1962. Centers & Centers. Peer group attitudes toward the amputee child. J, soc, Psychol.. 1963. 61. pp. 127-132. Cerulli. F. (M.D.). & Shugerman. Estelle. Infancy: counseling the family. New Outlook for the glind. Vol. 54-55. 1960-61. Chambers. V. E. Guidance for mothers of cerebral palsied children. Psychotherf? May 10. 1963. 49. p. 157. Chevigny. B.. & Braverman. S. The adjustment of the blind. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1950. 176 Cheyney. A. B. Parents view their intellectually gifted children. Peabody J. Educ.. Vol. 40. Sept.. 1962, pp. 98-101. Chojko. Margaret. Attitudes of children in school. Cerebral Palsy Bull.. Vol. 3. No. 6. Dec.. 1961. Cholden. L. A psychiatrist works with blindness. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 1958. Clark. E. Children's perceptions of a special class for educable mentally retarded children. Except. Child.. 1964. 30. pp. 289-295. Clarke. & Davis. The families of mentally retarded children. Develpp. Med, 5 Child Neurol.. 1963. 5. pp. 279-286. Clelond. C. C.. & Chambers. W. Experimental modification of attitudes as a function of an institutional tour. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. 1959. 53. PP. 124-130. Clelond. C. C.. & Cochran. I. L. The effects of institutional tours on the attitudes of high school seniors. Amer, J. ment, Defic.. 1961. 65. pp. 473-481. Clunk. J. Employer attitudes and the adjustment of the blind in Psycholpgical Diagnosis and Counselipg of the Adult Blind. Ed. by Donahue & Donahue. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 1947. Cohen. J. Effects of blindness on children's development. Children: An Interdisciplinary J. for Professions Serving Children. Vol. 13. No. 1. Jan.-Peb.. 3966. Cohen. J. S. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 67. Cohen. Pauline C. The impact of the handicapped child on the family. New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 58. No. 1. Jan.. 1964. Reprinted from pp§-Casewk. Vol. XLIII. No. 3. Coleman. J. C. Group Therapy with parents of mentally deficient children. Amer. J. ment. Pefic.. 1963. 57. pp. 700-704. 177 Condell. J. P. Parental attitudes toward mental retardation. Amer, g, ppnt, Defic.. V01. 71. No. 1. July. 1966. pp. 85-92. Cook. J. J. Dimensional analysis of child-rearing attitudes of parents of handicapped children. Amer, g, ment Defic.. vol. 68. Nov.. 1963. pp. 354-361. Connor. P. P.. & Goldberg. I. I. Children with crippling conditions and special health problems. 53v, Educ, Res.. vo1. 29. December. 1959. pp. 471-496. Connor. G. An educator looks at attitudes. New Outlook for the Blin . May. 1963. 57. pp. 153-156. Cornish. R. L. Administrator's opinions in the education of gifted children. Gifted Child Qpart.. Vol. VIII. No. 3 Autumn. 1964. pp. 117-122. Costello. P. M. The attitudes of parents of mentally retarded children toward counseling they have received. (Research Study No. 1). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colorado State College. 1963. Council for Exceptional Children. Professional Standards for Personnel in the Education of Exceptional Children. 1965. Cowen. E. L.. Underberg. R. P.. a Verilla. R. T. The development and structure of an attitude to blindness scale. Cowen. E. L.. Underberg. R. P.. & Verilla. R. T. Adjustment tg Vipual Disability in.Adolescence. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 1961. Cruickshank. W. M. The relation of physical disability to fear and guilt feelings. Child Develpp.. Vol. 22. No. 4. December. 1951. pp. 291-298. Cruickshank. W. M. (Ed.) Psychology of Exceptional Childrep and.YOuth. Second edition. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice-Hall. 1963. pp. 311-368. 178 Cummings. S. T.. Bayley. H. C.. & Rie. H. E. Effects of the child's deficiency on the mother: a study of mothers of mentally retarded. chronically ill and neurotic children. Outright. P. National political development. Amer, soc, Rev.. Vbl. 28. No. 2. April. 1963. Cutsforth. T. The blind in school and society: A psychological study. New York: American Foundation for the Blind. 1951. Davis. E. E. Attitude change: A review and bibliography of selected research. UNESCO. No. 19. 1964. Davis. R. Population. Sci, Amer.. Sept.. 1963. 209. pp. 63-71. Deaf patients learn to listen on a new wave length. g, gppgp;;;§,. XXXI. Nov.-Dec.. 1965. pp. 20-21. Dean. P.. & Eichlon. R. L. The cross-sectional field survey in Deby (Ed.). An Introduction to Social Research. Harrisburg. P. A.: The Stackpole Co.. 1954. pp. 199-224. DeJonge. J. J.. & Sum. F. M. Use of factor analysis programs for the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Laboratory for Social Science Research. Technical Report. 2. January 20. 1964. Dembo. T.. Leviton. G.. & wright. B.' Adjustment to misfortune - a problem of social psychological rehabilitiation. Artifical Limbs: 1956, 30 PP. 4‘62. Denhoff. E.. & Holden. R. Family influence on successful school adjustment of cerebral palsied children. Except. Child.. October. 1954. 21. pp. 5-7. Denhoff. E. The impact of parents on the growth of exceptional children. Except, Child.. Jan.. 1960. pp. 271-274. Diamond. R.. Smdth. A.. & Reifenburg. D. M. The work of the psychotherapist with spastics in a special school. CP Rev.. May-June. 1964. 179 Dickstein. Joan. & Dripps. Elaine. An analysis of attitudes of acceptance-rejection towards exceptional children. Master of Education Thesis. Boston University. 1958. Diekema. A. J. Level of occupational aspiration. performance in college. and facilitation: a preliminary test of certain postulates concerning the relationship between attitudes and bel. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Dingman. H. J.. Eyman. R. R.. & Windle. C. S. An investigation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers with retarded children. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. May. 1963. 67. pp. 899-908. Dittmann. Laura L. Lifetime goal. the mentally retarded child at home. United States Dept. of Health. Educ. a Welfare. No. 374. washington. D. C.. 1959. pp. 3-4. Dittmann. Laura L. The family of the child in an institution. Amer. J, ment, Defic.. VOl. 66. March. 1962. 5. pp. 759-765. Division of Child Development and Teacher Personnel. Helping Teachers Understand Children. American Council on Education. 1945. Dotson. L. An empirical study of attitude component theory. Publ, Opin, 9.. Vol. 26. No. 1. Spring. 1963. pp. 64-76. Droba. D. D. Education and Negro attitudes. Sociol, & soc. R88. 1 1932, 17' ppe 137-141e Edmonson. M. S. Los Manitos. a study of institutional values. Middle American Research Institute. Tulane University. 1957. The Education of Exceptional Children. Rev. Educ, Res.. 29. December. 1959. The Education of Exceptional Children. Rev. Educ. Res.. 33. February. 1963. Edwards. L. Technigpes of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Inc.. 1957. 180 Eichorn. J. R. The three R's plus P for the children who are blind. Elem. Sch. J.. Vol. 64. March. 1964. p. 301. Elser. R. P. The social position of hearing-handicapped children in the regular grades. Except, Child.. 25. 1959. pp. 305-309. Emerick. L. Extensional definition and attitudes toward stuttering. J, Speech & Hearing Res.. June. 1960. pp. 181-186. Epperman. D. C.. & Schmuk. R. A. The uses of social psychology in comparative education. Eppp. Educ. Rev.. February. 1963. We 182-190e Ernatt. R. A survey of pupils' attitudes toward intergrade abilitity grouping for reading instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Wayne State University. 1963. Eshbaugh. Mfl,& Walsh. J. A group approach to parents of children in trouble. U. 8. Dept. of Health. Educ. & Welfare. Government Printing Office. Washington. D. C.. Vol. 11. No. 3. May-June 1964. pp. 108-112. Farber. B. Effects of a severely mentally retarded child on family integration. Soc. for Res. on Child Develpp, Monggr. No. 71. 1959. Father. B.. Jenne. W.. & Toigo. R. Family crisis and the decision to institutionalize the retarded child. Council for Exceptional Children Research MonogT'Series A.. No. 1. washington. D. C.: the Council. a department of the National Education Assoc.. 1960. (a) Farber. B. Family organization and crises: maintenance of integration in famdlies with a severely mentally retarded child. Soc, for Res, on Child Develpm. Monogg. No. 75. 1960. (b) Farber. B. Perceptions of crisis and related variables in the impact of a retarded child on the mother. J. filth, & Human Behav.. Summer. 1960. pp. 108-118. (c) 181 Familial aspects of the generally handicapped: Barsch. Ray. The handicapped ranking scale among parents of handicapped children. Amer, J, Publ, Hlth, g Nations 81th.. Vol. 54. No. 9. September. 1964. p. 1560. Family Service Assoc. Casework services for parents of handicapped children. New York: Family Service Assoc. of America. 44 E. 23rd. St.. 1963. p. 65. Fellendorf. G. W. Factors affecting parents' decisions. Volta Rev.. September. 1960. pp. 341-345. Felty. F. F. The measurement of attitudes toward disability in San Jose. Costa Rica. A scale approach to the problem of concept equivalence. Paper read at the Ninth Inter- american Congress of Psychology. Miami. Florida. December. 1964. Felty. F. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: a pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Fenderson. D. A. Attitudes toward the handicapped. :ginnesota J, Educ.. Vbl. 44. February. 1964. PP. 27 a 33. Fenton. J. Guideposts for helping parent associations develop programs of education for children with cerebral palsy. g, Cgunci; ggr Except, Child.. April. 1958. p. 361. Festinger. L. A Theogy Q; ngnitive Dissonance. Evanston. 111.: Row Peterson. 5 Co.. 1957. Fisher. Anita H. Factors identified with positive and negative attitudes toward physical education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern California. 1964. Fishman. S. Studies of the upper-extremity amputee. IV. Educational implications. Artificial Limbs. Vol. 5. 1958. pp. 88-93. Fitzgerald. B.. & Kenneth. D. S. W. Family life education and work with the blind. The New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 56. February. 1962. p. 39. 182 Fitzsimons. Ruth. Parents-teacher conferences and speech- handicapped children. Education. December. 1961. pp4222-225. Fleming. E. 8.. a weintraub. S. Attitudinal rigidity as a measure of creativity in gifted children. J, Educ, Psychol. April. 1962. Fliegler. L. & Hebeler. J. A study of the structure of attitudes of parents of educable mentally retarded children and a study of a change in attitude structure. U. S. Dept. of HEW. Office of Education. Cooperative Research Program. Project No. 018. Syracuse. N. Y.: Syracuse University Research Institute. Vol. 1. & Vbl. 2. 1960. Foa. U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research. ipt, J, of Opin, a Attitude 53s.. Vol. 4. 1950. pp. l92-208.- Foa. U. G. The contiguity principle,in the structure of interpersonal relations. ‘gpgpp_fig;;§,. V01. ll. August. Foa. U. G. Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. Psgchol, Rev.. Vbl. 68. No. 5. 1961. pp. 34l-353. Foa. U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of communalities. Behav, gci.. Vol. 8. No. 3. July. l963. pp. 220-226. Formaad. W. Help for the child with impaired hearing. The National Edpc, Assoc, J.. 54. December. 1965. pp. 45-46. Force. D. G.. Jr. Social status of physically handicapped children. Except, Child.. val. 23. December. 1956. 54 Frank. W. W. .An exploratory study of attitudes and perceptions toward change among AID technical assistance program participants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Frazer. D. W. A study of parental attitudes toward the special education class for the mentally gifted sixth grade students in Atchinson. Kansas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nebraska Teachers College. 1963. 183 Freeburger. Adela R.. a Hauch. C. C. Education in Peru.. Office of Education. U. S. Department of Health. Education & Welfare. U. S. Printing Office. Washington. D. C.. 1964. Freeze. C. R. A study of openness as a factor of change in student teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alabama. 1963. Friesen. E. W. Nature and determinants of attitudes toward education and toward physically disabled persons in Columbia. Peru. and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1966. Fuller. C. W. Your child. maturity. and you: a talk with parents. Amer, Annals, of the Deaf. Vbl. 107. May. 1962. Funk. 3. C. The parents' role in educational planning. Vplta Rev.. vol. 66. No. 7. September. 1964. Furno. O. F.. & Costello. M. H. Activities and attitudes of physically handicapped special education graduates. Except, Child.. Octdber. 1963. pp. 85-91. Giangreco. C. J. Parental counseling —- a must. Volta Rev.. Gianonini. Margaret J.. & Goodman. L. Counseling the famdly during the crisis reaction to mongolism. Amer, J, ment. 2pfic.. Vol. 67. March. 1963. p. 740. Glasner. D. M. Factor analytic investigations of the components of attitude structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Purdue University. 1963. Goocher. B. E. Changes in descriptive word meanings as a function of change in attitudes and experience. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Southern Illinois University. 1963. Good. C. B.. & Scates. D. E. Methods of Research. Appleton- Century-Crofts. Inc.. New York. 1954. 184 Goode. W. J.. & Hatt. P. K. Methods'in Social Repearch. McGraw-Hill. New York. 1952. Goodenough. Florence. Expression of emotions in a blind-deaf child. J soc Ps ch 1.. 1932. 27. pp. 328-333. Goodman. Dornbush. Richardson. a Hastorf. Variant reactions to physical disabilities. Amer, goc, 55v.. June. 1963. 28. pp. 429-435. Goldstein. H. Planning for educable mentally retarded. Natiopp; Educ, Asgpc, J.. May. 1964. p. 53. Gorden. R. L. Interaction between attitude and definition of the situation in expression of opinion. Amer, sociol. Rev.. 1952. 17. pp. 50-55. Gordon. J. E. Relationships among mothers' n achievement. independence training attitudes. and handicapped children's performance. pp. onsult Ps chol.. l959. 23. pp. 207-212. Gordon. L. V. Manual for survey of interpersonal values. Sci. Res. Assoc.. Inc. #7-2761. Chicago. Ill.. l960. Gordon. L. V. Research briefs on survey of interpersonal values. Sci. Res. Assoc.. Inc.. Chicago. 111.. 1963. p. 28. Gordon. 8.. Berkovitz. M.. & Cace. C. Discovering and meeting the mental health needs of emotionally disturbed elementary school children: with emphasis on children whose parents are inadequate. ment, ng.. Vol. 48. No. 4. October. 1964. p. 581 Gorfein. D. S. Phenomenal regression and the need for control groups in attitude change studies. Psychol, Rep.. 1962. 1' pp. 23-24. Gowman. A. G. The war blind in American social structure. Amer. Foundation for the Blind. New York. 1957. Graliker. Fishler. & Koch. Teenage reaction to a mentally retarded sibling. Amer. J. ment;_Def;g,. Vol. 66. No. 6. 1962. pp. 838-843. 185 Grapham. R. Responsibility of public education for exceptional children. Except, Child.. Vol. 28. No. 5. January. 1962. pp. 255-259. Green. 8. F. Attitude measurement. In Lindzey. G. (Ed.) Hangpppk pf Social Psgcholpgy, Vbl. 1. Theory and method. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.. Reading. Mass.. 1954. Greenberg. M. S. The effect of social support for one's beliefs on two techniques of attitude change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Houston. 1963. Greenwald. H. J. The involvement-discrepancy controversy in opinion change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1964. Greenwood. E. The psychiatrist's role in the treatment of cerebral palsy. The Crippled Child. Vol. 29-30. 1953. Groff. P. J. Culturally deprived children: opinions of teachers on the views of Riessman. Except. Child.. Vol. 31. No. 2. October. 1964. pp. 61-66. Guilford. J. P. Psychometric.Methods, McGraw-Hill. New York. 1954. Gurney. W. Parents of children with congenital amputation. Children. May. 1958. 5. pp. 95-100. Guttman. L. The Cornell technique for intensity and scale analysis. Educ, & Psychol, Meas.. V01. 7. 1947. pp. 247- 280. (a) Guttman. L. a Suchman. E. A. Intensity and a zero-point for attitude analysis. Amer; soc. Rev.. 1947. 12. pp. 57-67. (b) Guttman. L. & Stouffer. S. A. et a1. Measurement and prediction. Princeton University Press. 1950. Guttman. L. & Foa. U. G. Social contact and intergroup attitude. Publ, Opin, 9.. Spring. 1951. pp. 43-53. Guttman. L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Publ, Opin 9,. vol. 18. #4. Winter. 1954. 186 Guttman. L. The principle components of scalable attitudes. in Lazersfeld. P. F. (Ed.) Mathematical Thinking in the §pcia1 §ciences. The Free Press. 1954. Guttman. L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. Amer, spc, Ev” 1959. 24. pp. 318-328. Guttman. L. The structuring of sociological spaces. Technical Note No. 3. Contract No. AF 61 (052)-121. December. 1961. p. 14. Haas. K. Personality needs of academically superior students and their parents. J. Edpc, Res.. 1963. 56. pp. 389-390. Hafterson. J. M. Multiple scalogram analysis (MBA) on the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research. Technical Report 6. February 10. 1964. Hafterson. J. M. The “CUT” program for Guttman scalogram analysis. Computer Center. Michigan State University. 1965. (mimeo-undocumented). Hagen. E. E. On the Theopz of §ocia1 Change.. The Dorsey Press. Inc.. Homewood. 111.. 1962. Hall. W. T. Physical (Cerebral Palsey) handicap and famdly stress. Cerebral Palsy Rev.. July-August. 1963. 24. pp. 3-5. Hallowitz. D.. Cutter. A. V.. & Pitkin. K. Consultation with parents of disturbed children. Children. Vol. 8. January-February. 1961. p. 22. Haltzman. W. H. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the south. J, soc, Psgchol.. 1958. 48. pp. 305-317. Hamilton. N. K. ttitudes toward special education for gifted children. J, Except, Child.. Vol. 27. 1950. pp. 147-150-163. Handel. A. F. Community attitudes-a factor in the psycho- social adjustment to disability. American Foundation for the Blind. Inc.. New York. 187 Hanks. J. R.. s Hanks. L. M. The physically handicapped in certain non-occidental societies. J, soc, Issues. 1948. 4. pp. 11-20. Hanson. E. H. Why eggheads aren't loved. Education. Vol. 84. No. 4. December. 1963. Hardaway. C. S.. Beymer. C. L.. & Engbretson. W. E. A study of attitudinal changes of teachers and pupils toward educational television and an analysis of attitudes of various groups toward educational television. (Office of Research and Testing. Indiana State College. Terre Haute. Indiana. June. 1963. Project 988.) Haring. Stern. & Cruickshank. Attitudes of educators toward exceptional children: the speech handicapped child. Sppc, Educ, & Ephabilit, Mpnpgr.. Syracuse Press. 1958. pp. 214-226. Harris. 8. A study of the modification of parental attitudes toward an understanding of mentally retarded children. Institute of Child Development and Welfare. College of Education. University of Minnesota. 1959. Contract SAE 7774. U. S. Office of Education. Harris. Grace M. For parents of very young deaf children. Vblta Rev.. January. 1964. pp. 19-26 a February. 1964. pp. 70-77. Harris. Norma. A pilot study of parental attitudes. Volta Rev.. September. 1960. 62. pp. 355-361. Ha r. Mary S. Changes in concepts of mental health. mental i lness. and perceptions of interpersonal relationships as a result of patient. family and member of family-friend system participation in conjoint family therapy in a hospital. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. St. Louis University. 1963. Heaton. Kathleen. Developing community interest in the partially seeing. §ight-Saving Rev.. Vol. 31. Winter. 1961. pp. 225-230. 188 Hentig. H. Physical disability. mental conflict and social crisis. J, soc. Issues. Vol. 4. No. 4. Fall. 1948. pp. 21-27. Hess. E. H. Social insurance. disability benefits and rehabilitation. Disability Prevention-Rehabilitation. Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled. Copenhagen. Denmark. 1963. International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled. 219 E. 44th St.. New York. Hill. P. L. When a child is gifted. Instructor. Vol. 68. June. 1959. Himes. J. 8. Some concepts of blindness in American culture. Attitudes prard Blindnpss. American Foundation for the Blind. New York. 1951. Hobbs. D. J. Value and attitude prediction of differential farm management ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Iowa State University of Science a Technology. 1963. Hodgson. F. M. Special education--facts and attitudes. Except. Child.. Vol. 20. January. 1964. pp. 196-201. Hgfnaggl, D. The syndrome of athetoid cerebral palsy. ment. defic.. self mutilation and hyperuricemia. J, ment. Defic.. March. 1965. Hoke. G. A. A comparative study of the comprehensive secondary school in England and the U. S. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Hollinshead. M. The social psychology of exceptional children. Part I. Except, Child.. November. 1959. 26. pp. 137-140. Holt. K. S. The home care of severely retarded children. Pediatrics.. 1958. 22. pp. 746-755. Holzber. J. D.. Dewirtz. H.. & Ebner. E. Changes in moral judgment and self-acceptance in college students as a function of companionship with hospitalized mental patients. J. consulg. Psychol.. XXVIII. No. 4. 1964. pp. 299-303. 189 Holtzman. W. H.. Kelly. J. G.. a Ferson. J. E. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the south. J. soc. Psychol. 1958. 48. pp. 305-317. Homans. G. C. The Human Group. HarcourtJErace & WOrld. 1950. Horowitz. L.. a Rees. N. Attitudes and information about deafness. Volta Rev.. April. 1962. 64. pp. 180-189. Householder. W. A. An evaluation of work experience programs as an element of agriculture education in a Panamanian school of agriculture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Howard. D. H. The American Negro's dilemma: attitudes of Negro professionals toward competition with white. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University. 1963. How cultural mores affect the blind population. New Outlook for the Blind. Vbl. 54. December. 1960. American Foundation f6} the Blind. Inc.. New York. How do parents feel? The Child with a Missing App or Leg. United States Dept. of Health. Educ. a welfare. Children's Bureau. Folder No. 49. 1959. pp. 6-7 Huffman. Mildred B. Teaching retarded. disturbed. blind children. New Outlook for the Blind. September. 1960. Hull. Wilma. Low vision aids. a teacher's viewpoint. The Sight-Saving Rev.. Vol. 31-33. Spring. 1961. Spring. 1962. Winter. 1963. Hulon. H. E. Liberal-conservative attitudes of public school -personnel in N. C. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 1963. Hurst. Jean M. An exploratory study of change in students expressed attitudes toward professional responsibility in the pre-service program of teachers college. Columbia University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1963. 190 Hyman. H. Survey Design and Analysis. The Free Press. Glencoe. 111.. 1955. Isaacs. Ann P. The role of parents of the gifted. guiding the Growth and Developppnt of Young Gifted Children. N.A.G.C.. Cincinnati. Ohio. 1961. pp. 3-6. Impact of the handicapped child on the family. New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 1. January. 1964. Iscoe. I.. a MeCann. B. Perception of an emotional continuum by older and younger mental retardates. J. Per, & soc. Psychol.. Vol. 1. No. 4. April. 1965. pp. 383-385. Jacobson. E.. & Schaehter. S. Cross national research: a case study. J soc. Isiues.. Vol. 10. No. 4. 1954. Jacobson. E.. Humata. H.. a Gullahorn. J. E. Cross-cultural contributions to attitude research. Publ, Qpin, 9,. Vol. 24. No. 2. Summer. 1960. PP. 205-223. Jaffe. J. Attitudes of adolescents toward the mentally retarded. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. May. 1966. pp. 907-912. James. F.. III. Occupational choice and attitude change: the effect of the decision to be a school teacher on self- expectation and school teacher stereotype. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Virginia. 1963. Jarnagin. R. A. Farmer attitudes toward the cooperative extension service in Illinois: a basis for communication strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1964. Johnson. G. O. A study of the social position of mentally retarded children in the regular grades. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. 1950. 55. pp. 60-89. Johnson. G. 0. A comparative study of the personal and social adjustment of the mentally handicapped children placed in special classes with mentally handicapped children who remain in regular classes. Syracuse University Research Institute. Office of Research in Special Education and Rehabilitation. 1961. 191 Johnson. K. F. Urbanization and political change in Latin America. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University . of California. Los Angeles. 1963. Jones. J. W. The blind child in school. School Life. Vol. 43. No. 6. February-March. 1961. pp. 7-10. Jones. J. W. The child at home. The Visually Handicapped Child. Bull. No. 39. United States Dept. of Health. Educ. & Welfare. Washington. D. C.. 1963. pp. 3-4. Jones. R. L.. s Gottfried. N. W. The preseige of special education teaching. Except, Child.. Vol. 32. No. 7. March. 1966. Jones. R. L.. Gottfried. N. W.. & Owens. Angela. The social distance of the exceptional: a study at the high school level. Except. Child.. Vol. 32. No. 8. April. 1966. Jordan. A. M. Personal-social traits of mentally handicapped children. In T. G. Thurstone. An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular classes. Chapel Hill. School of Education. University of North Carolina. 1959. Jordan. J. E. The Guatemala research and training center in rehabilitation and special education. Selected convention papers-40th annual convention. Washington. D. C.. The Council for Exceptional Children. NEA. 1962. (a) Jordan. J. E. The university looks at rehabilitation: an international perspective. g. Mich. Med. Soc.. 1962. 61. p. 620. (b) Jordan. J. E. Rehabilitation and special education in Latin America. Papers read at the Inter-American Congress of Psychology. Mar del Plata. Argentina. April. 1963 and at the second International Seminar on Special Education. Nyborg. Denmark. 1963. (a) Jordan. J. E. Special Education in Latin America. WOrld Horizons in Special Education. Proceedings of 1963. Summer Lecture Series. College of Education. Michigan State University. 1963. (b) 192 Jordan. J. E. Problems and promises of education in Latin America. Special Education in Latin America. Phi Delta Kappan. January. 1964. (a) Jordan. J. E. Revista Mexicana de Psicologia. La Rehabiliticion y Educacion Especial En La America Latina. February. 1964. (b) Jordan. T. Conceptual issues in the development of,a taxonomy for special education. Except, Child.. September. 1961. 28. pp. 7-12. Jordan. T. Physical disability in children and family adjustment. Rehabilit, Literature. Vol. 24. No. 11. November. 1963. Justman. J.. & others. The integration of deaf children in a hearing class. Bureau of Educational Research Publication No. 36. New York City Board of Education. 1956. Justman. J.. a Moskowitz. S. The integration of deaf children in a hearing class: the second year. Bureau of Educational Research Publication No. 38. New York City Board of Education. 1957. Kaarlcla. R. The role of the family in developing independence in the blind child. New Outlook for the Blind. April. 1959. 53. pp. 128-131. Kamenski. Gloria C. Some personality factors in attitudes toward technological change in a medium sized insurance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Kantor. R. E. Schizophrenia and the Protestant ethic. ment, Hyg.. Vol. 50. No. 1. January. 1966. Kapp. Harriet G. Adolescence: adjustment or rebellion. Volta Rev.. No. 4. April. 1966. pp. 266-268. Katz. D.. & Stotland. E. A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Keck (Ed.) Psychology: a study of science.. Vol. 3. Formulations of the person and the social context. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. New York. 1959. pp. 423-475. 193 Katz, D. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Publ, Opina 9.. Vol. 24. No. 2. Summer. 1960. pp. 163-204. Katz, E.. Levin. M. L.. & Hamilton. M. Research on the diffusion of innovation. Amer. soc. Rev.. Vol. 28. No. 2. April. 1963. Kelly. B. E.. at al. Some implications of social psychological theory for research on the handicapped. In L. H. Lofquist (Ed.). Psychological research and rehabilitation. washtington. D. C.. American Psychological Research and Rehabilitation. Washington. D. C.. American Physiological AICOC s o 1960 e Kelmen. B. C. The induction of action and attitude change. Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Applied . Psychology. Vol. 2. G. Nielsen. (Ed.). Personality Research. pp. 81-110. Keaworthy. A. L. Use of analysis of variance routines on the CDC 3600. ABS program description 2. Computer Laboratory. Michigan State University. September. 1963. Kerlinger. F. N. The attitude structure of the individual: a Q-study of the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. genet, Psychol.. V01. 53. 1956. pp. 283-329. Kerlinger. P. N. Progressiveness and traditionalism: basic factors of educational attitudes. J, soc, Psychol.. 1958. 68. pp. 11-135. Kerlinger. F. N.. & Kaya. E. The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educ, & Psychol= Meas.. 1959. 19. pp. l3-29. Kerlinger. F. N. Factor invariance in the measurement of attitudes toward education. Educ. & Psychol. Meas..21. 1961. Khleif. B. B. Teachers as predictors of juvenile delinquency and psychiatric disturbance. soc. Problems. Vol. 11. No. 3. Winter. 1964. Kilpatrick. F. P.. & Cantril. H. Self-anchoring scaling: a measure of individuals' unique reality worlds. J. Indiv. Psychol.. Vol. 16. 1960. pp. 158-173. 194 Kimbrell. D. L.. & Luckey. R. E. Attitude change resulting from open house guided tours in a state school for mental retardates. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. Vol. 69. No. 1. July. 1964. PP. 21-22. King. G. W. Selected patterns of behavior and social characteristics of white collar and blue collar residents in three suburban subdivisions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Kirk. S. A. Educating Exceptional Children. Houghton Mifflin. Boston. 1962. Klebanoff. Parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenics. brain-injured and retarded and normal children. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.. 1959. pp. 445-454. Kluckhohn. F. R.. & Strodtbeck. P. L. Variations in Value Orientatign.. Row. Peterson & Co.. Evanston. 111.. 1961. Knight. 0. B. Study of attitudes of a select group of principals toward special classes for the mentally retarded. J, Negro Educ.. Spring. 1966. pp. 184-188. Knittel. M. G. A comparison of attitudes toward the disabled between subjects who had a physically disabled sibling and subjects who did not have a physically disabled sibling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of South Dakota. 1963. Knoblock. P.. & Garcia. R. Toward a broader concept of the role of the special class for emotionally disturbed children. Except, Child.. Vol. 31. March. 1965. pp. 329-335. Knower. F. H. Experimental studies of changes in attitudes: a study of the effect of oral argument on change of attitude. J. soc. Psychol.. Vol. 6. 1935. pp. 315-347. Koo. M. American students' contacts with and attitudes toward foreign students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1962. 195 Kozier. Ada. Casework with parents of children born with severe brain defects. Casewk. Services for Parents of Handicapppd Children. 1963. pp. 53-58. Krans. S. Modifying prejudice: attitude change as a function of the race of the communication. Audiovisual Communication Rev.. Vol. 10. No. 1. 1962. pp. 14-22. Krich. Blanche L. A study of certain values and attitudes of students in a liberal arts college. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University. 1963. Kvaraceus. W. Acceptance-rejection of exceptionality. Except. Child.. 1956. pp. 328-331. Kvaraceus. W. D. Juvenile delinquency. Dept. of classroom _ teachers. American Education Research Assoc. of the National Education Assoc.. 1958. LaBue. A. C. Teachers classroom attitudes. J. Teacher Educ.. 1959. 10. p. 433. Lane. Helen S. Parent-teacher cooperation in the communication of the deaf child. Volta Rev.. Vol. 65. December. 1963. Langley. Elizabeth. Self image: the formative years. Huffman. Mildred B. A call for recreation. New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 55. No. 3. March. 1961. pp. 80-81. 86-89 e Lapp. E. R. A study of the social adjustment of slow-learning children who were assigned part-time to regular classes. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. April. 1954. 58. pp. 544-552. Lauritzen. P. W. Development of scales to measure parental attitudes toward education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of Iowa. 1964. Law. J. B. Attitude change as related to change in perception of the group norm. 1954. Dissertation abstract 14. 1108. 160. 196 Lawrence. Edna R. The relationship of teachers“ expressed self-acceptance and acceptance of children to social beliefs and educational attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. 1963. Laycock. S. R. Counseling parents of gifted children. J, Except, Child.. Vol. 23. 1956-57. p. 108. Lerner. D. The Passing of Traditional Society. Free Press of Glencoe. New York. 1958. Levitt. M.. & Rebenstein. B. O. The fate of advice: examples of distortion in parental counseling. ment, Hyg.. 1957. Levine. S. A. Conceptual framework for special education. Except, Child.. Vol. 28. No. 2. Octdber. 1961. pp. 83-90. (a) Levine. S. A. ‘A proposed conceptual framework for special education. Except, Child.. October. 1961. 28. pp. 83-90. (b) Lewin. K. Principleg of Topplggical Psychology. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. Inc.. New York. 1936. Lewis. H. B. Studies in principles of judgment and attitudes: the operation of the prestige suggestion. J. soc. Psychol.. Vol. 14. 1941. pp. 220—229-256. Lingoes. J. C. Multiple scalogram analysis: a set theoretical model for analyzing dichotomous items. Educ. & Psychol. Meas.. Vol. 23. No. 3. 1963. pp. 501-524. Lingoes. J. C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis - I. The University of Michigan. 1965. Lofquist. L. (Ed.). Psychological research and rehabilitation. Washington. D. C.. American Psychological Association. 1960. Logan. J. B. The relationship between teachers attitudes toward supervisors and certain selected variables that might affect their attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. 1962. 197 Longstreet. R. J. An experiment with the Thurstone Attitude Scales. Sch, Rev.. 1935. 43. pp. 202-208. Loomis. C. P.. & McKinney. J. C. Systematic differences between Latin American communities of family farms and large estates. Amer. J. sociol.. Vo1. 61. March. 1956. pp. 404-412. Loomis. C. P. Social Systems. D. Van Nostrand Co.. Inc.. Princeton. N. J.. 1960. Lorea. & ward. The social schema of normal and speech defective children. J, soc. Psychol.. 1966. 69. pp. 87-95. Lowenfeld. B. The blind child as an integral part of the family and community. The New Outlook fpr the Blind. April. 1965. 59. p. 119. Lukoff. 1.. & Whiteman. M. Attitudes toward blindness - some preliminary findings. New Outlook for the Blind. February. 1961. 55. pp. 39—44. MacFarland. D. C. The public image of blindness. New Outlook for the Blind. May. 1964. PP. 150—152. MacFarland. D. C. Social isolation of the blind. J. Rehabilit. Vol. 32. No. l. January-February. 1966. p. 32. Malferrari. C. J. The.American overseas executive: an external profile. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Mall. K. L.. & Darley. F. L. Attitudes of mothers of articulatory-impaired and speech-retarded children. g, Sppech & Hearing Disorders. XXV. November. 1960. pp. 377-384. Maloney. Elizabeth. Director intervention on behalf of the blind child. soc. Casewk.. Vol. XLIII. No. 1. January. 1962. pp. 22-26. Mandelbaum. A. The meaning of a defective child to parents. New Outlook for the Blind. December. 1960. pp. 320-329. 198 Margary. J. The Exceptional Child. Holt. Rinehart & Winston. New York. 1960. Marge. Dorothy K. The social status of speech—handicapped children. J. Speech & Hearing Res.. IX. No. 2. June. 1966. p. 165. Mead. M. Cultural Patterns and Technical Change. UNESCO. 1955. Mehling. R. A simple tes: for measuring intensity of attitudes. Publ. Opin.gg.. 23. 1959. Merton. R. K. Social Theopy and Social Structure. The Free Press of Glencoe. 1957. Meyers. C. E.. Sitkei. E. G.. & Watts. C. A. Attitudes toward special education and the handicapped in two community groups. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 71. No. 1. July. 1966. pp. 78-84. Meyerson. L. Physical disability as a social psychological problem. J. soc. Issues. Vol. 4. No. 4. 1948. pp. 2-10. Meyerson. L. Somatopsychology of physical disability. Psychol. of Except. Child. & Youth. W. M. Cruickshank (Ed.) Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.. 1955. Chapter I. pp. 1-60. Michaels. J. Observations on psychodynamics of parents of retarded children. Amer. J. ment. Dcfig,. RC 321 .AS. pp. 568-573. Michigan Association of County Special Education Administrators. Special Education Administrative Manual. 1965. Miller. B. J. A parent's view. 2;; Child with Brain Damag_. proceedings of the annual meeting of the Assoc. for the Aid of Crippled Children. 1959. Miller. Elsa A. Cerebral palsied children and their parents. Except. Child.. Vol. XXLV. 1957-58. p. 298. .Miller. June. Institute for parents and their deaf children. Volta Rev.. Vol. 66. April. 1964. pp. 185-197. 199 Miller. R. V. Social status and socioempathic differences among mentally superior. mentally typical and mentally retarded children. Except. Child.. December. 1956. 23. pp. 114-119. Morrow. W. R.. & Wilson. R. C. Family relations of bright high achieving and underachieving high school boys. g, Except. Child.. Vol. 32. 1961. Morris. C. Varieties of Human Value. The University of Chicago Press. 1956. Mulholland. Ann M. Guidance for the hearing impaired. Natipnal Catholic Educ. Ass, Bull.. August. 1963. 60. Mullen. P. A. The crippled. National Educ. Ass. J,. Vol. 47. 1958. PP. 616-618. Mullen. F. A.. & Itkin. W. Achievement and adjustment of educable mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular grades. U. S. Dept. of Health. Educ. & Welfare. Office of Education. Cooperative Research Program. Project No. 157. Chicago: Chicago Board of Education and Dept. of Public Instruction of State of Illinois. 1961. Murphy. A. T. Attitudes of educators toward the visually handicapped. Sight-Saving Rev.. Vol. 29. 1959. pp. 157-161. Murphy. A. T.. Dickstein. Joan. & Dripps. Elaine. Acceptance. rejection and the hearing handicapped. Volta Rev.. Vol. 62, No. 5. May. 1960. pp. 208—211. (1) Murphy. A. T. Attitudes of educators towards the visually handicapped. Sight-Saving Rev.. 1960. pp. 157-152. (b) Mussen. P. H.. & Newman. D. K. Acceptance of handicap. (notivation. and adjustment in physically disabled children. Except, Child.. Vol. 24. February. 1958. Myers. G. C. Parents and the gifted child. Education. September. 1958. 200 Nash. M. V. A study of attitudes of a group of non-handicapped people toward the orthopedically handicapped. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1962. Newton. Mary G. Readers. not leaf-turners. Volta Rev. Vol. 66. No. 2. February. 1964. pp. 67-69. Nichols. R. Parental attitudes of mothers of intelligent adolescents and creativity of their children. Child Develpp.. Vol. 35. No. 4. December. 1964. p. 104. Norris. Eleanor. L. Belief change and stress reduction as methods of resolving cognitive inconsistency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Wisconsin. 1964. Nunally. J. C.. & Babren. H. M. Attitudes change with false information. Publ, Opin, 9.. Vol. 23. No. 2. 1959. O'Connor. C.. & O'Connor. L. A study of the integration of deaf children in regular classrooms. Except, Child.. May: 1961: 27' Pp. 483-486e O'Connor. E.. & Goldberg. 1. Children with crippling conditions and special health problems. Rev. Educ, Res.. December. 1959. 29. PP. 471-496. Okshansky. S. Chronic sorrow: a response to having a mentally defective child. Casewk, Serv, for Parents of Handicapped Children. 1963. pp. 13-15. Oliver. R. A.. & Butcher. H. J. Teacher's attitudes to education. British J, soc, & cli . Psycho;.. I. 1962. pp. 56-69. ' Olshansky. S.. & Kettell. Marjorie. Attitudes of some pediatricians toward the institutionalization of mentally retarded children. Training Sch, Bull.. November. 1962, 59. PP. 67-73. Olshansky. 5.. & Kettell. Marjorie. Attitudes of some interns and first-year residents toward the institutionalization of mentally retarded children. Training Sch, Bull.. Vol. 59. February. 1963. p. 116. 201 Orinstein. A. S. An investigation of parental childrearing attitudes and creativity in children. Dissertation Abstracts. Vol. 22. April-June. 1962. Osgood. C. E.. Suci. G. J.. & Tannenbaum. P. H. ‘Ing Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press. 1957. Our son is not poor. K. K. March with S. H. Littenberg. M.D. The Cgippled Chi; . October. 1953. Pacella. M. J. Understanding your teen-ager. ment. Hyg. V01. 47. No. 2. April. 1963. pp. 273—278. Palumbo. Adelaide. Parental rejection of crippled children. Ager. J. Orthopsychiat.. XVI. April. 1946. pp. 103—111. Parcky. A.. & Vaught. G. Maternal estimates of future achievement in cerebral palsied children. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 69. July. 1964. pp. 62-65. Parent survey in California. Volta Rev.. Vol. 66. No. 10. December. 1964. Parson. T.. & White. W. The link between character and society. In S. M. Lipset. & L. Lowenthal (Eds.) Culture and Sgcial Character. The Free Press. New York. 1961. pp. 98-103. Parsons. F. The Social System. The Free Press. Glencoe. 1951. Paterson. Thelma. Family influence on the hard of hearing child. helpful hints from the mother of a hard of hearing child. Hearing News. Vol. 31. No. 3. May. 1963. p. 9. Payne. S. L. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton University Press. Princeton. N. J.. 1951. Peall. H.. Jurgensen. Grethen. & Charost. S. B. Comparison of childrcaring attitudes of mothers and fathers of emotionally disturbed adolescents. Child Develpm.. XXXIII. March. 1962. pp. 117-122. (\J Peifer. J. E. The development of an attitude scale to measure students attitudes toward reading in the secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. 1962. Peterson. Backer. Schoemaker. & Luria. Child behavior problems and parental attitudes. Child Develpm.. Vol. 32. p. 151. Phelps. W. R. Attitudes related to the employment of the mentally retarded. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 69. No. 4. January. 1965. Physical disability in children and family development. Rehabilit. Literature.. Vol. 24. November. 1963. pp. 330- 337. Pitfield. M.. & Oppenhein. A. M. Child rearing attitudes of mothers of psychotic children. J. Child Psychol. & Psychiat.. Vol. 5. June. 1964. pp. 51-57. Platt. H.. et a1. Comparison of child rearing attitudes of mothers and fathers of emotionally disturbed adolescents. Child Develpm.. 1962. 33. pp. 117-122. Polonsky. D. Beliefs and opinions concerning mental deficiency. Amer. J. ment, Defic.. 1961. 66. pp. 12-17. Popp. C.. Ingram. V.. & Jordan. P. Helping parents understand their mentally handicapped children. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 4. April. 1954. Purcell. W. J. Some factors affecting attitudes of prospective teachers toward elementary methematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Columbia University. 1964. Quick. Marian. Parent's responsibility in their deaf child's social adjustment. Volta Rev.. Vol. 67. No. 2. February. 1965. Radtke. R. C. An S-R approach to attitude intensity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. State University of Iowa. 1963. 203 Rappaport. Ida. Parents and retarded children. ment. Defic.. July. 1965. pp. 182-184. Raskin. N. The attitudes of sighted people towards blindness. Paper presented to National Psychological Research Council on Blindness. 1956. Rawls. Rachel F. Parental reactions and attitudes toward the blind child. New Outlook for the Blind Child. Vol. 51. No. 3. March. 1957. p. 92. Reeves. J. K. Some parental and social attitudes towards children using hearing aids. Vblta Rev.. Vol. 64. June. 1962. pp. 314-316. 331. Reynolds. M. The social psychology of exceptional children: Part III. Except, Child.. January. 1960. 26. pp. 243-247. Richardson. S. A.. & others. Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. .Amer, soc. Rev.. 1961. PP. 241- 247. Riley. M. W.. Riley. J. W.. a Jackson. T. Sociolggical Studies in Scale Analysis. Rutgers University Press. New Brunswick. 1954. Riley. M. W. Sociolpgical Research. Harcourt. Brace a World. New York. 1963. Robinson. M. E. Educatign for Social Chang_, The Brookins Institution. Washington. D. C.. May. 1961. Rocco. Joyce. & Rocco. F. Should houseparents assist in mObility training? New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 58. No. 9. November. 1964. pp. 288-289. Roeher. G. A. A study of certain public attitudes toward the orthopedically disabled. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. 1959. Rogers. E. M. Diffusion of Innovations. The Free Press of Glencoe. New York. 1962. 204 Rokeach..M. The Open and Closed Mind. Basic Books. Inc.. New York. 1960. Rokeach. M. Attitude. attitude change and behavior change. Unpublished manuscript. Michigan State University Library. East Lansing. Michigan. 1966. Roos. P. Psychological counseling with parents of retarded children. ment. Retardation. December. 1963. 1. pp. 345- 350. Rosen. L. Selected aspects in the development of mother's understanding of her mentally retarded child. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. 1955. 59. pp. 522-528. Rosenburg. M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. JI Abnorm, & soc, Psychol.. Vol. 53. 1956. pp. 367-372. Rosenburg. M. J. .A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Publ, Opin, 9.. Vol. 24. No. 2. Summer. 1960. pp. 319-372. Rothschild. C. S. The reaction to disability in rehabilitation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ohio State University. 1963. Rothman. R. R. Attitudes toward the blind in integrated schools. New Outlook for the Blind. American Foundation for the Blind. March. 1958. Ruble.‘W. L.. & Rafter. Mary B. Calculation of basic statistics when missing data is involved. (The MDSTAT Routine). Stat. Series Description No. 6. Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan State University. 1966. (a) Ruble. W. L.. Kiel. D. P.. & Rafter. Mary E. Calculation of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7. Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan State University. 1966. (b) Ruble. W. L.. Kiel. D. F.. & Rafter. Mary E. One-way analysis of variance with unequal number of replications permitted. (UNBQl Routine). Stat. Series Description No. 13. Agricultural Experiment Station. Michigan State University. 1966. (c) 205 Rudloff. J. S. Counseling hearing handicapped children in school. Except. Child.. Vol. 30. No. 6. February. 1964. Rusalem. H.. & Jenkins. Shirley. Attitudes of homebound students toward return to regular classroom attendance. Bxcepp, Child.. October. 1961. 28. Pp. 7l—74. Ryckman. D. B.. 5 Henderson. R. A. The meaning of a retarded child for his parents: a focus for counselors. ment. Retard.. Vbl. 3. No. 4.xAmer. Assoc. on ment. Defic.. 1965. Salkins. 1. Changing employers attitudes toward the psychologically handicapped. J. Rehabilit.. V01. 28. No. 3. 1962. p. 26. Schaefer. B. S.. & Bell. R. Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Develpg.. 1959. 29. pp. 339-361. Scholten. E. A. School readiness: a study comparing the attitudes of school and kindergarten teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1965. Schwartz. Marcia G. A deaf child in my hearing class. Volta Rev.. Vol. 66. No. 8. October. 1964. pp. 627-630. Scott. D. H. Abnormal mothering as a cause of mental subnormality. J, Child Psychol.. V01. 3. 1962. pp. 135-148. Scott. W. A. Impirical assessment of values and ideologies. Amer, soc, Rev.. V01. 24. 1959. PP. 299-310. Semmel. M. 1. Teacher attitudes and information pertaining to mental deficiency. Agar. J. ment. Defic.. 1959. 63. pp. 566-674. Semmel. M. 1.. & Dickson. S. Connotative reactions of college students to disability labels. Eggept._Child.. Vol. 32. No. 7. March. 1966. Shere. Marie. Socio-emotional factors in family of the twin with cerebral palsy. §3cept. Child.. February. 1956. 22. Shibutani. T. Society and Personality. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. N. J.. 1961. Siegenthaler. B. M.. & Flamm. M. 0. Subjects' self judgments of speech and judgments by trained observers. J. Speech 5 Hearing Disorders. August. 1961. 26. pp. 244-251. Simmons. J. S. Social integration of preschool children having hearing problems. Sociol & soc Res.. November. 1955. 40. pp. 99-101. Simon. Mrs. Richard. A parent speaks. Vblta Rev.. September. 1964. pp. 570-573. Sinsarian. F. P. Suburbia as a source of foster care. Children. May-June. 1964. Sister Mary Benedict. A handicap is a many-sided thing. Crippled Child. February. 1957. p. 12. Smith. B. M, Attitudes and adjustment in cross-cultural contact: recent studies of foreign students. J. socI Issues. Vol. 12. No. l. 1965. Smith. G. M. A study of state employment counselors' attitudes toward and knowledge of the mentally retarded (research study No. l). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Colorado State College. 1964. Smith. H. E. An analysis of the effects of university prestige figures in changing the attitudes of students in the area of the university image. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University. 1964. Smith. I. L. The invariance of educational attitudes and their relations to social attitudes: an inverse factor analytic study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. 1963. Smith. W. Aid the mentally retarded child at home. The Pointer. February. 1965. 9. pp. 48-51. Some dynamic factors affecting family adjustment to the handicapped child. Except. Child.. April. 1962. 207 Sommar. R. R.. Furlong. Anna R.. Rhode. F. E.. Fitcher. G. K.. Bowser. Delores C.. Copetas. Florence G.. & Saunders. Z. G. Effects of maternal attitudes upon improvement in articulation when mothers are trained to assist in speech correction. J, Speech & Hearing Disorders. May. 1964. Soldwedel, Bette & Terrill. Isabelle. Sociometric aspects of physically handicapped and non-handicapped children in the same elementary school. Except. Child.. May. 1957. 23. pp. 371-372. 381-383. Speer. S. C. A study of dropouts among vocational high school pupils with respect to attitudes toward school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut. Spencer. Marietta B. Blind Children in Family and Community. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1960. Stauffer. S. A. Social Research to Test Ideas. The Free Press of Glencoe. 1962. Sterne. G. G. Measuring noncognitive variables in research on teaching in Gage. N. L. Handbook of Res. on Teaching. Stouffer. S. A. An overview of the contributions to scaling and scale theory. In S. A. Stouffer. et a1. Measurement and Prediction. Princeton University Press. Princeton. 1950. Strauss. A. (Ed.). The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead. Phoenix Books. University of Chicago Press. 1956. Stoddard. Hilda M. The relation of parental attitudes and achievements of severely mentally retarded children. Amer, J, mentz Defic.. 1959. 63. pp. 575-598. Stubblefield. H. W. Religion. parents. and mental retardation. ment, Retardation. V01. 3. No. 4. August. 1965. Suchman. E. A.. & Guttman. L. A solution to the problem of question bias. Publ. Opin. 9.. Vol. 11. 1947. pp. 445-455. 208 Suchman. E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer. et a1. Measurement 5 Prpdictipn. Princeton University Press. Princeton. N. J. 1950. Suchman. E. A. Public opinion research across national boundaries. Publ, Opin. 9.. V01. 22. No. 2. Summer. 1958. Suedfeld. P. Conceptaul and environmental complexity as factors in attitude change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Princeton University. 1963. Tackuma. 8. Health attitude scaling: an empirical study of the criterion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Stanford University. 1962. Tanaka. J.. & Osgood. C. E. Cross-culture. cross-concept and cross-subject generality of affecting meaning system. J, Personal, & soc. Psychol.. V01. 2. 1965. PP. 143-153. Tannenbaum. P. H. Initial attitude toward source and concept as factors in attitude change through communication. Publ, Opin, 9.. Vol. 20. 1956. pp. 413-423. Tannenbaum. P. H. Mediated generalization of attitude change via the principle of congruity. J, Personal. a Applied Sci.. May. 1966. PP. 493-499. Taylor. J. L. A study of the relationship between attitudes toward education and the extent to which teachers partici- pate in certain professional activites. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Arizona State University. 1963. Tenny. J. W. The minority status of the handicapped. Excepta Child.. April. 1953. 18. PP. 260-264. Thomas. Mary M. A comparative study of personality patterns and attitudes toward mental retardation and child-rearing practices of parents of intellectually normal and educable and trainable mentally retarded children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. 1963. Thoreson. W. P. Conflicting social norms as they affect attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota. 1963. 209 Thurston. J. B. Attitudes and emotional reactions of parents of institutionalized cerebral palsied. retarded patients. .Amer. J. ment..Defic.. LXV. September. 1960. pp. 227-235. Thurston. J. R. Counseling the parents of the severely handicapped. Except, Child.. Vol. 2c. pp. 351-354. Thurston. J. R. A procedure for evaluating parental attitudes. Amer. J. ment. Defic.. Vol. 53. 1938-59. p. 148. Thurston. J. R. Too close to Normalcy: parental involvement in the education of slow learners. Clearing House. Vol. 38. January. 1964. Thurstone. Thelma. An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular classes. Chapel Hill: School of Education. University of North Carolina. 1959. Tisza. Veronica B. Management of the parent in pediatric practices-workshop 1960. Amer. J. Orthopsychiat.. Vol. 32. January. 1962. p. 53. Tizard & Grad. The Mentally Handicapped and Their Families: A social Surve . London Oxford University Press. N. Y.. ToronEE. 1961. Tobin. L. Not according to the appearance. §aturday Rev.. February 26. 1966. p. 26. Tollefeon. T. I. The relationship between attitudes. personal values. biographical data and proficiency ratings Obtained upon psychiatric aides. Purdue University. 1963. Toms. Mildred R. Mental health for teachers of partially seeing children. The Sight-Saving Rev.. XXXIV. 1964. pp. 234-236. Toth. J. E. An analysis of the nature and extent of rehabilitation in Guatemala. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Michigan State University. 1963. 210 Trippe. M. The social psychology of exceptional children. Part II. Except. Child.. Vol. 26. December. 1959. pp. 171- 175. 188. Underberg. Rita. The relationship between parental under- standing and child adjustment in the visually disabled adolescent. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Rochester. 1958. Underberg. Rita. Benahm. F.. verillo. R.. a Cowen. E. L. Adjustment to visual disability in adolescence. pr_ Outlppk for the Blind. Amer. Foundations for the Blind. 55. September. 1961. PP. 253-259. (a) Underberg. Rita. 5 others. Factors relating to adjustment to visual disability in adolescence. New Outlook for the Blind.. 55. September. 1961. pp. 253-259. (b) Understanding Child. Vol. XVII. No. 1. January. 1949. UNESCO. Comparative cross-national research. Int. soc. Sci. Bull.. V01. 7. No. 4. 1955. Varwig. R. Pediatrics and disorders in communication: social considerations in the care of the preschool hearing handicapped child. Volta Rev.. Vol. 67. June. 1965. pp. 434-438. Verillo. R. T. A study of adjustment and the relationship between parental attitudes and adjustment in visually impaired and sighted adolescents. Unpublished doctoral thesis. University of Rochester. 1958. Vittetoi. J. O. The influence of cooperating teachers on attitudes of student teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University. 1963. Vocational Rehabilitation Administration. Department of Health. Education and Welfare. Rehabilitation of the Disabled in Fifty-One Countries. U. S. Printing Office. Washington. D. C.. 1962. Wagman. M. Attitude change and authoritian personality. J: P8!Ch°1e I V01e 40' 1958' pp. 3-24. 211 Waisanen. F. B. A notation technique for scalogram analysis. The soc, 9.. Vol. 1. No. 4. October. 1960. pp. 245-252. Waisanen. F. B. in finding a place in contemporary mass society: A Problem of Roles. Department of Social Science. The University College. Michigan State University. 1962. Waisanen. F. B. Some theoretical convergencies in the social psychology of alienation. A paper for the VIII Inter- American Congress of Psychology. Mar del Plata. Argentina. April. 1963. Wakefield. R. A. An investigation of family background of educational mentally retarded children in special classes. ExceptI Child.. V01. 31. November. 1964. ward. Systematic intensification and extensification of the school curriculum. Except. Child.. Octdber. 1960. 27. pp. 67-71. Ward. J. H.. Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (Ed.). Compgter.Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. 1962. Warren. Sue A.. Turner. D. R.. & Brody. D. 8.. Can education student's attitudes toward the retarded be changed? ment. Retardation. V01. 2. No. 4. August. 1964. Warren. Sue A.. & Turner. D. R. Attitudes to professionals and students toward exceptional children. Training Sch. Bull.. February. 1966. pp. 136-144. Washburn. W. C. The effects of sex differences on protective attitudes in delinquents and non-delinquents. Except. Child.. Vol. 30. No. 3. November. 1963. Wattenberg. W. A guide for parents: you child's mental health. N.E,As J.. February. 1964: PP. 35-50. (a) Wattenberg. W. Your child's mental health. N.E.A. J.. February. 1964. 53. pp. 35-50. (b) Webster. T. G. Problems of emotional development in young retarded children. Amer. J. Psychiat.. 1963. 120. pp. 37-43. 212 Weiner. Jean L.. a O'Shea. Harriet E. Attitudes of university faculty. administrators. teachers. supervisors. and university students toward the gifted. Except, Child.. December. 1963. PP. 163-165. weingold. a Hormuth. Group guidance of parents of mentally retarded children. J, clin. Psychgl.. Monograph Supplement No. 9. April. 1953. Wells. D. E. The Effect of Choicg Messages on Attitude Change. Michigan State University. 1964. West. Dora. Integration: for whom? how? New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 51. 1957. pp. 253-255. West. Geraldine. Gaining stature through status. Sight- §aving Rev.. V01. 32. Spring. 1962. westlund. N. M.D. Saginaw Valley Children's Center. Saginaw. Michigan. Palumbo. Adelaide 2. Family welfare society. Providence. R. I. Parental rejection of crippled children. Amer. J, Orthopsychiat.. V01. 16. 1946. p. 271. Whiteman. L. Public attitudes toward blindness. New Outlook for the Blind. Vol. 56. May. 1962. pp. 153-158. Whorton. Gladys P. The hard of hearing child: a challenge to educators. Volta Rev.. May. 1966. pp. 351-353. Williams. R. American Society. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. 1951. pp. 372-442. Wilson. E. C. Problems of survey research in modernizing areas. Publ, Opin. 9.. Vol. 22. No. 3. Fall. 1958. Winder. A. E. A program of group counseling for the parents of cerebral palsied children. Cerebral Palsy Rev.. Vol. 19. May-June. 1958. pp. 8-11. Windle. C.. a Vallance. T. F. The future of military psychology: para-military psychology. Amer. Psychologist.. Vol. 19. No. 2. February. 1964. pp. 119-128. 213 Wirtz. M..A. The development of current thinking about facilities for the severely mentally retarded. ment, Defic.. January. 1956. PP. 492-507. Amer, J, W0odruff. A. D.. a Divesta. F. J. The relationship between values. concepts and attitudes. Educ, p Psychol. Meas.. Vol. 8. 1948. pp. 645-660. W0rche1. & Worchel. Parental concept of the mentally retarded child. Amer, J, ment, Defic.. 1961. pp. 782-788. W0rtis. H.. a Cooper. W. The life experience of persons with cerebral palsy: a study of 63 histories. Ameg, J, ‘Wright. Beatrice A. Ppygical Qisability-A Psycholggical Apppoach. Harper a Bros.. New York. 1960. Wright. F. H.. & Klein. R. A. Attitudes of hospital personnel and the community regarding mental illness. J, counsel, Psychol.. XXXI. No. 1. 1966. PP. 106-107. wu. Y. Attitudes of individuals with visable and invisable physical impairments toward their disability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York University. 1963. Yuk. G. H.. 5 others. Maternal acceptance of retarded children: a questionnaire study of attitudes and religious background. Child Develpm.. 1961. 32. pp. 525-540. Yuker. H. E. Attitudes as determinants of behavior. g; Rehabilit.. November-December. 1965. pp. 15-17. Zetterberg. H. L. 9n Theopy and Verification in Sociolggy. The Bedminster Press. Totawa. N. J.. 1963. Zuckerman. M.. Ribback. Beatrice B.. Monashkin. 1.. a Norton. J. A. Normative data and factor analysis on the parental attitude research instrument. J, consult, Psychgl.. 22. No. 3. 1958. PP. 165-171. Zuk. G. H. The religious factor and the role of guilt in parental acceptance of the retarded child. Amer, J, ment.‘ Defic.. 1959. 64. PP. 139-147. 214 Zuk. G. H.. et a1. Maternal acceptance of retarded children:‘ a questionnaire study of attitudes and religious backgrounds. Child Develpp.. September. 1961. 32. pp. 525-540. Zuk. G. H. The cultural dilemma and spiritual crises of the family with a handicapped child. The Council for Excepp. Child.. V01. 28. No. 8. April. 1962. pp. 405-408. ADDENDUM TO REFERENCES Almond. G.. & Coleman. J. S. (eds.) The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton University Press. 1960. Clark. J. Mppugl of Cogppter Prggrams. Research Services. Department of Communications. Michigan State University. 1964. (Mimeo). Cruickshank. W. M.. a Johnson. G. 0. Education of Exceptional Children and Youth. Prentice-Hall Inc.. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. 1958. Edwards. A. L., Egpprippntal Design in Psygholggical Reseprch. Rinehart. New York. 1960. Garrison. K. C.. a Force. D. G. The Psycholggy of Exceptional Children. Roland Press Co.. New York. 1965. Meyerson. L. Somatopsychology of physical disability in Cruickshank. W. M. (ed.) Psychology of Exceptiona1;Chi1dren and‘Youth. Prentice-Hall Inc.. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. 1963. Ruble. W. L.. Paulson. Sara J.. & Rafter. Mary E. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance with unequal frequencies permitted in the cells -- no interaction effects. (LS Routine - Temporary). Stat. Series Description No. 115. Agriculture Experiment Station. Michigan State University. May 0 1966 e Whiteman. M.. & Lukoff. I. F. Public attitudes toward blindness. New Ouglook for the Blind. May. 1962. pp. 153-158. Yuker. H. E.. Black. J. R.. & Cambell. D. A. A Scale to Measure Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Human Resources Study No. 5. Human Resources Foundation. Division of Abilities. Inc.. Albertson. New York. 1960. APPENDIX A'* 1. Definitions of Disabling Conditions 2. Attitudes Toward Education 3. Survey of Interpersonal Values 4. Personal Questionnaire 5. Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 6. Personal Questionnaire: HP * It will be noted in several places throughout the instruments that ”alternatives" to a question appear on separate pages. In the actual instruments of the study all alternatives to a question were on the same page. thus facilitating response focus for the testee. 215 APPENDIX A Instrumentation A-l Definitions of Disabling Conditions 216 DEEINITIONS What is meant by “physical handicap.“ The words ”physically handicapped“ will be used often in the questions and statements that follow. Where these words are used. they will include persons with any of the following handicaps: l. 2. Blind persons - those who have no useful sight at all. Partly blind persons - those who have some sight but have trouble reading and getting about even with glasses. Deaf persons — those who have no useful hearing at all. Partly deaf persons - those who have some hearing but have trouble understanding other persons even with a hearing aid. Cripples or amputees - those who have arms or legs that have been paralysed or removed even though they may be of some use with artificial hands or legs. Spastic (or cerebral palsy) - those who have poor control and coordination of their leg. arm. and ,head movements. Movements are often jerky and speech hard to understand. Disfigured - those who have been obviously damaged about the face. such as with burns or scars. so that the face has been changed. 217 APPENDIX A Instrumentation A-2 Attitudes Toward Education 218 No. Location Male Group Female Date EDUCATIQN SCALE Instructigns: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about education. we all think differently about schools and education. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with_the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in frgnt of the answer ygg gglect. ' You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before. by placing a ciggle aggggd the nggbgr in front of the answer you select. l. -The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests and needs as well as by the larger demands of society. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 2. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree 219 No. 220 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly schools of today are neglecting reading. writing. and arithmetic: the three R's. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship between a child.who needs direction. guidance. and control and a teacher who is an expert supplying direction. guidance. and control. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Teachers. like university professors. should have academic freedomr-freedom to teach what they think is right and best. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree NO. 221 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The backbone of the school curriculum.is subject matter: activities are useful mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The traditional moral standards of our culture should not just be accepted; they should be examined and tested in solving the present prdblems of students. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree NO. 10. ll. 222 E.D. About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Net strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Learning is experimental: the child should be taught to test alternatives before accepting any of them. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree NO. 12. 13. 14. 223 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interests of children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. ‘Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly The curriculum.should be made up of an orderly sequence of subjects that teach to all students the best of our cultural heritage. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well-established standards. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree so. 15. 16. 17. 224 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Education and educational institutions must be sources of social ideas: education must be a social program undergoing continual reconstruction. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Right from.the very first grade. teachers must teach the child at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answers? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly Children should be allowed more freedom than they usually get in the execution of learning activities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree NO. 18. 19. 20. 225 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. very strongly Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than they usually get. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knowledge. 1. Strongly disagree 3. .Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly In a democracy. teachers should help students under- stand not only the meaning of democracy but also the meaning of the ideologies of other political systems. 1. Strongly disagree 3. agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree No. 226 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Net strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly APPENDIX A Instrumentation A-3 Survey of Interpersonal Values 227 % AW SCORE if or ()ocupuiion (; n; do PERCENTILE NORM GROUP Marital Status; 1,. a School or Firrnag 228 SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES ’ By LEONARD V. GORDON DIRECTIONS In this booklet are statements representing things that people consider to be important to their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do: Examine each set. Within each set, find the one statement of the three which represents what you consider to be most important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed M (for most). Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which one of these statements represents what you consider to be least important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed L (for least). For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is most important to you, one statement as representing what is least important to you, and you will leave one state- ment unmarked. Example M L To have a hot meal at noon .,, ,. :::::: :— To get a good night’s sleep, ,. ,_ , :::::: :::::: TO get plenty Of fresh air, ,, _ :::::: Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that “To get plenty of fresh air” is the most important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed M (for most) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents something that is least important to you. Suppose that “To have a hot meal at noon” is the least important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed L (for least) next to this statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would leave the remaining statement unmarked. In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statement to mark. Make the best decision that you can. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark only one M (most) choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set. Turn this booklet over and begin. an“ Science Research Associates, Inc. 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611 A Subsidiary of IBM Copyright 1960 © Science Research Associates, Inc. Printed in U.S.A, All rights reserved. Reorder No 7-2760 6789/l-9876543 Mark your answers in column A -——> To be free to do as I choose ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ,, To have others agree with me .................................................. To make friends with the unfortunate ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be in a position of not having to follow orders ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To follow rules and regulations closely ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To have people notice what I do ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To hold an important job or office ........................................... To treat everyone with extreme kindness , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To do what is accepted and proper ....................................... , To have people think of me as being important, , ,, , To have complete personal freedom ,, To know that people are on my side To follow social standards of conduct, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To have people interested in my well being, , I , I . To take the lead in making group decisions To be able to do pretty much as I please , . To be in charge of some important project ,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To work for the good of other people , ,. , , , , , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To associate with people who are well known ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To attend strictly to the business at hand,,,, , ,, To have a great deal of influence , , To be known by name to a great many people, To do things for other people, , H . To work on my own without direction To follow a strict code of conduct ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be in a position of authority, , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To have people around who will encourage me ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be friends with the friendless, , ,. , , , , , To have people do good turns for me ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be known by people who are important. To be the one who is in charge. , . , ,, To conform strictly to the rules ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To have others show me that they like me , . . . . H To be able to live my life exactly as I wish ...................... To do my duty... ._ .......... . ........ ; ............................... To have others treat me with understandlng ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be the leader of the group I’m in ..... , ....................... To have people admire what I do- ........... , ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To be independent in my work, .............................................. To have people act considerately toward me . To have other people work under my direction,,.....,,,,.,_.,,,,._, To spend my time doing things for others .............................. To be able to lead my own life .......................................... To contribute a great deal to charity ...................................... To have people make favorable remarks about me. ., . Turn the page and go on. Mark your answers in column B —> To be a person of influence .......................................................... To be treated with kindness ..................................................... T0 always maintain the highest moral standards . To be praised by other people To be relatively unbound by social conventions ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, To work for the good of society,.... ., , To have the affection of other people. , . . To do things in the approved manner .................................. To go around doing favors for other people To be allowed to do whatever I want to do ..... , To be regarded as the leader , .. , ,_ , ., To do what is socially correct , . , , , , ..... To have othe1s approve of what I do, ., ,, To make decisions fo1 the group . . ,. ,, , To sha1e my belongings with other people To be free to come and go as I want to , To help the poor and needy To show respect to my superiors To be given compliments by other people To be in a very responsible position To do what is considered conventional To be in charge of a group of people To make all of my own decisions To receive encouragement from others To be looked up to by othe1 people To be quick 1n accepting otheis as f1iends To di1ect otheis in then w01k To be generous toward other people , , , ...... Tobe my own bOss , , ,, ,, . . . ,. ,, ,, 33;; To have understanding friends To be selected for a leadership position , ‘‘‘‘‘ To be treated as a person of some importance ...... To have things pretty much my own way . 7 ...... To have other people interested in me , ...... To have proper and correct social manners ,, 1.5... To be sympathetic with those who are in trouble VVVVV To be very popular with other people , ,, , ____ To be free from having to obey rules , , ...... To be in a position to tell others what to do, ...... ,. , ...... To always do what is morally right , ------ T 0 go out of my wa) to help otheis . ...... 'l 0 have people willing to oife1 me a helping hand , ;:,;;; To have people admire me . . ::::;: To always do the approved thing . ...... To be able to leave things lying around if I wish , , , , .. """" APPENDIX A Instrumentation A—4 Personal Questionnaire 229 No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL STIONNB RB This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part has to do with your contacts with schools and education. and what you know about education. YOu may have had considerable contact with schools and education, or you may know a great deal about education. On the other hand. you may have had little or no contact with schools or education and may have never thought much about it at all. For the purposes of this investigation the answers of all pgrsons are igpgrtant. If you know very little or nothing about schools or education your answers are important. If you know a great deal about them.your answers are important. The second part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous. you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to evegy ggestion. 230 PIES TIONNA RE Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill in the answer as requested. SECTION 1: r e ces w c d c t 1. Below are listed several different kinds of schools or educational provisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education, which one have you had the 59st experience with, or do you have the most knowledge about? Please place the number of the group you know best in Box A. the number of the group you know next best in Box 3. and the third best in Box C. 1. Elementary school (grade school) A. A / . (2183:) 2. Secondary school (high school) B. Z / (gggt‘best) 3. College or university C.’Z / (third 4. Other types (please specify) best) 2. The following questions have to do with the kinds of contacts you have had with schools or education. Please ‘ circle the number of each experience that applies to you. Be sure and circle the number of evegy experience that applies to you. My father. mother. brother. sister. wife (husband) or child works in education (in any position: professional or non-professional) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ‘Some other relative works in education . . . . . . 2 I have worked in education, as a teacher. administrator. counselor, volunteer. etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A friend of mine works in education. . . . . . . . 4 A neighbor of mine works in education. . . . . . . S 231 232 I have studied about schools and education through reading. movies. lectures. or Observations . . . . 6 I have read or heard a little about schools and education 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 I know little or nothing about education . . . . . 8 Other (please specify) A 9 3. About how much have you worked in schools or educational settings? Please circle the number of the one best answer. lever. . . . . . . . . . . .i. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Less than three months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between three and six months . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between six months and one year. . . . . . . . . . 4 Between one and three years. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Between three and five years . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Between five and ten years . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Over ten years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Over fifteen years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4. If you have ever worked in education, about what percent of your income was derived from such work? Less than lO%~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 2E% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 25 and 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 50 and 75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Between 75 and 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I have not worked in education . . . . . . . . . . 6 233 5. If you have ever worked in education how have you generally felt about it? I definitely have disliked it . . . . . . . . . . l I have not liked it very much . . . . . . . . . . 2 I have liked it somewhat. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I have definitely enjoyed it. . . . . . . . . . . 4 I have never had such an experience . . . . . . . 5 6. If you have ever worked in education for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain) what oppprtunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead: that is. something else that was. or is. acceptable to you as a job? A No other jOb was available. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Other jobs available were not at all acceptable tome O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 2 Other jdbs available were not gpite acceptable tom 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 3 Other jobs available were fully acceptable to m. 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O I O C O O O O O O O 4 I don't know what other jdbs were available or acceptable 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 5 I have had no work experience in education. . . . 6 234 No. A P.Q. SECTION 2: Personal Information 9. How old are you? (write age in box) . . . . . . . Z / 10. Where were you mainly reared or ”brought up“ in your youth (that is up to age of 15 or 16)? City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 City suburb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Country town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other (please specify) 5 ll. Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family) been mainly employed during the past 3 years? City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 City suburb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Country town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other (please specify) 5 12. Where have you mainly lived during the past 3 years? City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 City suburb. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Country town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Country. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other (please specify) 5 235 No. P.Q. 13. What is your marital status? Married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Single. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Divorced. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 14. How many children do you have? (Please write number in box) 0 e e e s e s e s s s e s e e s e s e s o s e s 15. Please answer either A or B; whichever applies best to your present situation. a. If you are self-suppprting, about what is your total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married. the total yearly income in the family). Include extra income from any regular sources such as dividends, insurance. etc. Please write the total in the box. . . . . . . . . . . . . . b. If you are ppp,self-supporting (or. if you are married, if your family is not self-supporting) what is the approximate total yearly income before taxes of the persons who mainly provide your support (that is, parents. relatives, or others . Make the best estimate you can. . . . . . . 16. According to your answer to question 15. about how does your income compare with that of most people in your community? Much lower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 mwe r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 About the same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Higher O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 236 No. P.Q. Web h ighe r O O O O O O O O O O O No Opin ion 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 17. How many brothers have you? (Please write number in W). O O O O O O O O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 18. How many sisters have you? (Please write number in 19. About how does (or did) your father's income compare with that of most people? Much lower. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About the same. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Much higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 20. What is your religion? Catholic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Protestant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Jewish. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 21. {About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? NOt ve rY im rtant O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1 Fai rly immrtant O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 Very important. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 237 No. P.Q. 22. During an ”average" work day. you probably have occasion to talk and make contact with other adult persons where you are employed. Estimate about what percent of these contacts and conversations are with people you feel pgrsonally close pp, whom you consider to be clpse friends. or that are relatives of yours. None 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Less than 1WA. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 BetweenlOand30%................3 Between 30 and 5% O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 4 Between 50 and 70% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Between 70 and 9Q% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 “ore than 9“. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 I do not usually talk or make contact with other adult persons where I am employed. . . . . . . . . . . . 8 23. How important is it to you to work with people you feel personally close to? Not at all important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fairly immant O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 24. Now please consider all of the personal contacts you have with people when you are not at work. WOuld you estimate about what percent of your contacts apart from working hours are spent with people whom you know because of your jdb: that is who work at the same job. trade or that you otherwise contact in the pursuit of your job. None 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Less than 10%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 238 No. Between 10 and 3QK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 30 and sax. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 50 and 70%~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 70 and QQX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . More than 9Q% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. People have different ideas about ”social class." P.Q. . 6 . 7 Which of the following possibilities best agrees with your thinking about how many social classes there probably are? None or one . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Two classes: lower and upper. . . . . . . . . . Three classes: lower, middle. and upper . . . . More than three classes . . . . . . . . . . . . No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26. Which social class do you believe you are in? Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Middle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other (please specify) No opinion C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 27. Which social class do you believe your father is was) in? Lowe r O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O 0 Middle 0 O C O O O O O O O O .. O O O O O O O O 0 up” r O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 239 No. P.Q. Other (please specify) - 4 No opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 28. About how much education do you have? 3 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . l 6 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 12 years of school or less. . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Some college or university. . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A college or university degree. . . . . . . . . . 6 Some graduate work beyond the first degree. . . . 7 One or more advanced degrees. . . . . . . . . . . 8 Other (please note no. of years of study or diploma Obtained, ’ O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 9 29. About how does your education compare with that of most people? Much less than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Less than most. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 More than most. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Much more than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S No opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 30. About how does (or did) your father's education compare with that of most people? ”nah less than mat O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 240 No. P.Q. Less than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About average. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 More than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Much more than most. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 No opinion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 31. ‘What type of living arrangement do you have? Rent a house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rent an apartment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rent a room (meals in a restaurant, etc.). . . . . 3 Purchase room and board (rooming house. etc.). . . 4 Own an apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Own a house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Other (please specify) 7 32. Please answer either A or B A. If you are renting the place where you live. about how much money per month do you pay for rent? B. If you pgp the place where you live (house. apartment. or other). about how much money per month do you believe you could rent it for? (Please write amount in box) . . . . . . . . 33. In every community each group (for example, schools. businessmen, labor, the local government) has a different job to do for the community. In your community. would you say that the schools are doing an excellent, good, fair or ppgp job? How about businessmen? Labor? The local government? The doctors and hospitals? The church? (Please place an §_in the appropriate column to indicate how you feel that each is doing its job.) 241 llent Good r Poo Don't NO. Please answer for each group. Group 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. th services 8. 34. How long have you lived in your present community? Less than 1 year . . From 1 to 2 years. . From 3 to 6 years. . From 7 to 10 years . Over 10 years . . . 35. Have you changed your (Please circle the correct Yes 0 O O O O O O O NO 0 O O O ‘ O O O O O 36. Have you changed your years? (Please circle the residency during the past 2 number.) employment during the past 2 correct number.) P.Q. 242 No. P.Q. 37. About how many times have you changed residency during the past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number.) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 1 time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 3 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 ~ 6 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 - 10 times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Over 10 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 38. About how many times have you changed jobs during the past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number.) None . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . l 1 time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 3 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 - 6 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 - 10 times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Over 10 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 39. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title or name of your job and the nature of your work. 243 No. P.Q. 40. In respect to your religion. about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? (Please circle the correct number.) seldom O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 1 somt1mg O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 U3ually O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 AlmSt always 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 41. Health experts say adding certain chemicals to drinking water results in less decay in people's teeth. If you could add these chemicals to your water. with little cost to you. would you be willing to have the chemicals added? (Please circle the correct number.) Yes O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 mybe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 PrObably not 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 3 NO 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 Don . t “W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 42. Some people feel that in bringing up children. new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling on the following statement? ”New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly agree 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 Don . t know 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 Slightly disagree. 0 O C C O O O O O O O O C C O O 4 strongly disagree. 0 O O O C C O O O C O O O O O O 5 244 No. P.Q. 43. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing some- thing good or bad? If you had to decide. would you say they are doing wrong or rather. that they are doing right?' It is always wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 It is usually wrong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 It is probably all right . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 It is always right 0 O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 4 44. Running a village, city. town. or any governmental organization is an important jdb. What is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly. even if they are doing a good jdb. Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Don . t know 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 Slightly disagree.': . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Strongly disagree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 45. Some people believe that more federal and local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly agree 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Slightly disagree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Strongly disagree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 NO. 46. 245 I find it very easy to change my ways . . I find it somewhat easy to change my ways I find it slightly difficult to change. I find it very difficult to change 47. my own. Agree strongly . . Agree slightly . . Don't know . . . . Disagree slightly . Disagree strongly . 48. I find it easier to follow rules than to I like the kind of work that the same way from one week to the Agree strongly. . . Agree slightly. . . Don't know . . . . Disagree slightly . Disagree strongly . 49. another part of the country? Agree strongly. . . Agree slightly. . . A good son will try to do things do things P.Q. Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? 4 5 find work that keeps him near his parents even though it means giving up a good job in 246 No. P.Q. Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disagree slightly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Disagree strongly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 50. we should be as helpful to people we don't know as we are to our friends. Agree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Agree slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disagree slightly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Disagree strongly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 51. Planning only makes a person unhappy because your plans hardly ever work out anyway. Agree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Agree slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Don't know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disagree slightly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Disagree strongly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 52. Which of the following requisites do you consider most important to make your life more happy and satisfactory? Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 More money . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 More friends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Better job . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 247 No. P.Q. Good health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Others (specify) 6 53. What do you think you can do to make this possible? Nothing APPENDIX A Instrumentation A-S Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 248 No. Location Male Group Female Date HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about physically handicapped persons. we all think differently about persons with physical handicaps. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before. by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly‘ 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 2. Physically handicapped persons are just as intelligent as non-handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree 249 250 No. ATDP About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 3. Handicapped people are usually easier to get along with than other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 4. Most physically handicapped people feel sorry for themselves. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 5. Physically handicapped people are the same as anyone else. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 251 HO. ATDP 6. There shouldn't be special schools for physically handicapped children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 7. It would be best for physically handicapped persons to live and work in special communities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 8. It is up to the government to take care of physically handicapped persons. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 252 NO. ATDP 9. Most physically handicapped people worry a great deal. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 10. Physically handicapped people should not be expected to meet-the same standards as non-handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly ll. Physically handicapped people are as happy as non-handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 12. Severely physically handicapped people are no harder to get along with than those with minor handicaps. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree 253 No. ATDP About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 13. It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to lead a normal life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly l4. YOu should not expect too much from physically handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 15. Physically handicapped people tend to keep to themselves much of the time. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 254 NO - ATDP 16. Physically handicapped people are more easily upset than non-handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly l7. Physically handicapped persons cannot have a normal social life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 18. Most physically handicapped people feel that they are not as good as other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly 19. You have to be careful of what you say when you are with physically handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree No. 20. 255 About how strongly do you feel 1. Not strongly at all 3. 2. Not very strongly 4. l. Strongly disagree 3. 2. Disagree 4. About how strongly do you feel 1. Not strongly at all 3. 2. Not very strongly 4. about your answer? Fairly strongly Very strongly Physically handicapped people are often grouchy. Agree Strongly agree about your answer? Fairly strongly Very strongly ATDP APPENDIX A Instrumentation A-6 Personal Questionnaire: HP 256 No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP This questionnaire deals with your contacts with physically handicapped persons. and what you know about them. Perhaps you have had much contact with physically handicapped persons. or you may have studied about them. On the other hand. you may have had little or no contact with physically handicapped persons. and may have never thought much about them at all. For the purposes of this investigation. the answers of all persons are igpgrtant. so even if you know very little or nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers are important. 257 HO. questions. PERSONAL QQESTIONNAIRE Please read each question carefully and do not omit any Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill in the answer as requested. SECTION 1: Egpgriences with Handicapped Persons 1. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below. In respect to these various handicaps. which have you had the most actual experience with. Please answer by circling the number of the group you select. Circle only one. blind partially blind deaf (and deaf—mute) partially deaf crippled or amputated limbs 6. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) spastic (or cerebral Palsy) speech disorders none 2. Which other groups have you also had some experience with? Please circle the number of each additional group with which you have had some experience. 1. blind partially blind deaf (and deaf-mute) partially deal crippled or amputated limbs 258 6. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) spastic (or cerebral Palsy) speech disorders none NO. 3. 259 If on the preceding question you indicated that you have had no pgrsonal expgrience with physically handicapped persons (by circling response No. 9.) please skip questions #3 through #8. If you ' indicate that you have had experience with one or more of the above handicapping conditions. please answer gpestions £3 through £8. The following questions have to do with the kinds of ggpgriences you have had with physically handicapped persons. Please circle the number of each expgrience that applies to you. If more than one experience applies. please circle a number for each experience that applies. My father. mother. brother. sister. wife (husband) or child is physically handicapped . . . . . . 1 Some other relative is physically handicapped. 2 I have personally worked with physically handicapped persons. as a teacher. counselor. volunteer. child care. etc.. . . . . . . . . . 3 A friend is physically handicapped . . . . . . 4 I have studied about physically handicapped persons through reading. movies. lectures. or observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I have read or heard a little about physically handicapped persons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 I. myself. have a physical handicap. (Briefly. please indicate the kind of handicap) 7 Considering all of the times you have talked. worked. or in some other way had personal contact with physically handicapped persons. about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. NO. 5. Less than 10 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 50 and 100 occasions. . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . 4 More than 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 When you have been in contact with physically handicapped people. how easy for you. in general. would it have been to have avoided being with these handicapped persons? I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty . . . 1 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty. . . 2 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts. but with some inconvenience . . . . . 3 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 During your contact with physically handicapped persons. did you gain materially in any way through contacts. such as being paid. or gaining academic credit. or some such gain? Yes. I have been paid for working with handicapped ”rsons O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 1 Yes. I have received academic credit or other mterial gain 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 No. I have never received money. credit. or any other material gain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 NO. 8. 261 If you have never been paid for working with handicapped persons go on to tne next question. If you have been paid. about what percent of your income was derived from contact with physically handicapped persons during the actual period when working with them? Less than 1% O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Between 10 and 23%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 25 and 50%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 50 and 75%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 mre than 7 5% O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 5 How have you generally felt about your experiences with handicapped persons? I definitely have disliked it . . . . . . . . . 1 I have not liked it very much . . . . . . . . . 2 I have liked it somewhat . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I have definitely enjoyed it. . . . . . . . . . 4 The following questions should be answered by all persons. regardless of whether or nou they have had any personal contact with 1 pgrsons who are physically handicapped. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering all of the times you have talked. worked. or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded persons. about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. Less than 10 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . l Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 50 and 100 occasions. . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . 4 More than 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Have you had any experience with emotionally ill persons? Considering all of the times you have talked. worked. or in some other way had personal contact with emotionally ill persons. about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. Less than 10 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 50 and 100 occasions. . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . 4 More than 500 occasions . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 APPENDIX B Variables. Administration Procedures. Code Book. and Code Forms Basic Variables of the Study Administration Procedures Code Book Data Transcription Sheet FCC I and II Variable- Computer Print-Out Code APPENDIX B B-l Basic variables of the Study BASIC VARIABLES - MICHIGA'LC A. Attitudes Towapg Eeucatien (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Traditional attitudes. Items 3.4.6.10.11.12.13.14. 18.19. - Content Raw score total Adjusted total scores (dichotomized) Traditional attitudes. Items 3.4.6.10.1l.12.l3.14. 18.19. - Intensity Raw score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Progressive attitudes. Items l.2.5.7.8.9.15.16.l7. 20. - Content Raw score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Progressive attitudes. Items 1.2.5.7.8.9.15.16. 17.20. - Intggsity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Q'airo. Item 5 (enjoyment of contact) B. Egppriences with Education (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Levels of education experienced Q'airo. Item 1 (most contact) Q'airo. Item 1 (additional contacts-no. of) Type of contact with education Q'airo. Item 2 Degree of contact (work) with education Q'aire. Item 3 Personal gain through working in education Q'aire. Item 4 (% of income) Alternative opportunities available Q'aire. Item 5 (refers to other possible employment) 265 266 C. Aid to Education - Financial (Q'aire) Item 45 (local and federal) D. Intergggscnal Values - Gordon Scale (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) R scores B scores S scores C scores I scores L scores (yields ceggarative value score) Recognition (yields asset value score) Benevolence - Support - Confornity - Independence ~ Leadership E. Denograzhic §,E.§,, Other Control Data (All fron Q'aire - (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) if not excepted) Education Item 28 Occupation - current Item 39 Incono and rental Iten 15 (8.3. Class) Iten 32 (income) Age Item 9 Sex Front sheet of questionnaire Marital status Item 13 Nunber of children Item l4 Size of fanily Iten l7 (bro.) Item 8 (sis.) Religious affiliation Iten 20 Hone ownership Item 31 Mobility Itens 34. 35. 37 - residency Itens 36. 38 - occupational 267 (12) Rural4Urban Items 10. ll. 12 (13) Employment status - current Item 39 (Employed. unemployed. housewife. etc.) F. Satisfaction with Ingtitutions Questionnaire, Card 3 (l) Satisfaction with elementary schools Item 33-1 (2) Satisfaction with secondary schools Item 33-2 (3) Satisfaction with universities Item 33-3 (4) Satisfaction with business Item 33-4 (5) Satisfaction with labor Item 33-5 (6) Satisfaction with local government Item 33-6 ' (7) Satisfaction with health services Item 33-7 (8) Satisfaction with churches Item 33-8 G. Self-Statements} QuestionnaireI Card (1) Comparative income status - self Item 16 (2) Comparative income — fathtr Item 19 (3) Number n5 accial classes Item 25 (4) Comparative social class - self Item 26 (5) Comparative social class - father Item 27 268 (6) Comparative education - self Item 29 (7) Comparative education - father Item 30 H. Religiosity Questionnaire. Card (1) Perceived importance Item 21 (2) Perceived norm conformity Item 40 (3) Adherence Item 20 I. Personalism QuestionnaireI Card (1) Orientation toward job persenalism . (a) Statement of extent of personalism on job Item 22 (b) Perceived importance of personal relations Item 23 (2) Diffusion of personal relationships Percent of job-social overlap Item 24 (3) Familialism Item 49 (Son's work) (4) Other-orientation Altruism Item 50 (Toward friends vs. others) J. Attitudes Toward Change Questionnaire. Card (1) Health practices (water) Item 41 (2) Child-roaring practices Item 42 (3) Birth control practices Item 43 (4) Political leadership change Item 44 (5) Self-Conception Item 46 (Perceived self-rigidity) Item 47 (Adherence to roles) Item 48 (Job regularity and rigidity) (6) (2) (3) 269 Future orientation Item 51 (Planning) Item 52 (Requisites fer happiness) Item 53 (Achievement of happiness) Handicapped Persons Scale Items 1-20 (content) Raw scare total Adjusted total scare (dichetomized) Handicapped Persona Scale. Items 1-20 (intensity) Raw score total Adjusted total scare (Qichotemizcd) Personal Questionnaire: HP, Item 8 (enjoyment of contact) L. Contact with Handicapped Persons (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Kinds of handicapped persons experienced P.Q.-HP. Item 1 Mast contact P.Q.-HP, Item 2 Additional contacts Type of relationship with handicapped P.Q.-HP. Item 3 Frequency ef contact with physically handicappea PoQo-pr Item ‘ Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicappeé P.Q.-HP, Item 5 Personal gain through working with handicapped persons P.Q.-HP. Item 6 (experienced gain) P.Q.-HP, Item 7 0% of income) Frequency of contact with mentally retaréeé PoQo-Iip' Item 9 Frequency at contact with emotionally ill P.Q.-HP, Item 10 APPENDIX B B-2 Administrative Procedures 270 PROCEDURES POR.ADHIHISTRATION: CROSS-CULEURAL.ATTITUDE STUDY John E. Jordan Michigan State University last Lansing. Michigan December, 1964 The specific instructions will vary in detail from nation to nation. However, the following outline is presented on the basis of my experience thus far with the questionnaires and attitude scales. 1. {Arrange for a meeting room and/or place. The respondents should have a table (or similar surface) on which to write and ample room between respondents (in group administration) to minimize influencing each other. After introducing oneself (or being introduced). state briefly the following kind of rationale for the study: ”This is an international study of attitudes toward education; part of it deals with education in general and part of it deals with the education of handicapped persons. Each part is clearly stated. Remember, in a study like this. there are no right or wrong answers to the attitude questions. We want you to answer how ygu feel about certain things. Therefore. we do not want your name on the questionnarie. Please answer quickly. with your first idea first. and do not spend a lot of time thinking about each item. ' Remember this is an international study and all the people in the other countries will be answering in the same manner. If there is no answer that exactly fits what you would like to answer. please choose the alternative nearest to your desired answer. 271 3e 272 Please answer all items. If you have any questions as you proceed, please raise your hand and we will come to you and dis- cuss it individually so as not to disturb the other people. When we have all completed the questionnaires, I will be glad to discuss the study in more detail if you desire. Thank you very much for taking time to cooperate in the study." Distribute the page of definitions. "we will now distribute to you a page of defini- tions of certain handicapping conditions which will be referred to in some of the questionnaires. we will all take a few minutes to read these so we will all have the same idea about the same words. You may refer to these later if you so desire. Also. we want you to put a number in the 22255 left hand corner of the page like this (show them what you mean). Since we do not want you to put your name on the questionnaire. you will use this number. In this manner no one will know your answers. We must have your number and group (special education, teacher. business. etc.) on each questionnaire so we can put all the answers of one person together at the end." Here the respondents "number off" and see that no. two persons have the same number. Remember if two people in a group have the same number. the data cannot be analyzed. Distribute the attitude scales and questionnaires in the following order. In group administration be sure to pass out only one instrument at a time. Order of Administration oflnstrumentg l. Page of definitions 2. Education Scale 273 . Survey of Interpersonal Values . Personal Questionnaire . Handicapped Persons Scale . Personal Questionnaire: HP dun-bu Distribute the Education Scale. Have the respondent fill out data on the top of scale: (1) number. (2) Sex. (3) Location. (4) Group. and (5) Date. Either instruct the respondents to read silently the instructions or the administrator may read them to the group: this is left to each country to do in the manner they consider most appropriate. Our experience shows that if the instructions are well understood on this first instrument. the other instruments are easily understood. when the respondents have completed the Education Scale. collect them and distribute the next one as indicated above in Point Number Four. Proceed in a similar manner until all five instruments have been completed. If situations arise where the instruments are left with the respondent (i.e.. either in an office or to take home). try to impress on them the order in which to take them (e.g.. number them 1-2-3-4-5 in the upper right hand corner) and not to look at them ahead of time. Do not leave instruments with respondents except when absolutely necessary and in such cases mark 9n them later to indicate they were given in this manner. Respondent identification. See discussion under Points Numbered 3 and 6 above. Remember we need a minimum of 50 persons per each of the four groups: (1) special education. (2) teacher-primary and secondary. (3) workers - blue and white collar. and (4) employers-business. commerce. industry. We would prefer to have more so secure as many as you can conveniently locate up to 100 per group. 274 Each of these respondents must fill out all five ipstruments. using the same resppndent number and ggoup. If either the respondent number or group is omitted or duplicated. the data cannot be collated for data analysis: When you have secured enough completed sets of instruments for a "usual size” mailing package in your country. please mail to me rather than waiting to send all of them at one time. In this manner I can have the data scored and tabulated for computer processing in an orderly manner. If I receive all the data at one time. it will be difficult to hire assistants here at the university on any regular basis. Each time you mail a package of data. you should send.me a letter describing it so I can keep records. APPENDIX B B-3 Code Book 275 CODE QQQK ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED AND EON-HANDICAPPED PERSONS: A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY CH STUDY John E. Jordan College of Education Hichigan State University December 28. 1964 IRSTRUCTIONS EOR.TEE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. 2. Code-n. or no. will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing. except as noted. Code 2,org22,will mean there was No Information or the figspgndent did not answer. unless otherwise stated or impossible to use. Code g or §§_ will always mean Don't 539w unless other- wise indicated. or if it is impossible to use due to the type of question. In each case in the following pages the column to the lgft contains the column number of the IE! card: the second cglgpp contains the question number from the questionnaire: the spird column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item: and the fourth column contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. The fifth column (recode) specifies those items which should be checked for recoding after the item count is finished: i.e.. after all data is key punched. run the data through the N.S.U. computer to determine the patterns of response alternatives to a question. This will indicate if regrouping. etc. need to be considered for the item. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used. they are not repeated each time. but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with “same.” 276 Column-Qges, 1.2.3 4.5 6.7 277 CARD 1 Page l~1 Item.Detail Code Recode Nation and United States Location 001 - Mich.. Mt. Pleasant 002 - Mich.. Cadillac 003 - Mich... Ann Arbor 004 - Mich.. Port Huron 005 - Mich.. Lansing 006 - Mich.. waldenwoods 007 " Mich... Flint 008 - Mich.. Misc.. Ka1.. Mid. Latin.America 101 - Costa Rica 102 - Colombia 103 - Peru 104 - Argentia 105 - Mexico 106 - Surinam 'Europe 201 - England 202 — Holland 203 - Belgium 204 - France 205 - Yugoslavia 206 - Denmark Asia 301 - India 302 - Japan Africa 401 - Kenya 402 - Rhodesia 403 ~ South Africa Group Number 01 - 99 Respondent number 01 - 99 Sex of Respondent 1 - Masculine 2 - Feminine 3 - No Information 278 CARD 1 Page 1-2 Cglumnfles . Item Detail Code Recode 9 Occupational - Code 01 - 09. Rehab.. Spec. Ed. 0 Recode 1 - Code 10 - 19. Education (General) 2 - Code 20 - 45. Professional Business. Medical 3 - Code 50 - 86. White Collar. Blue Collar. Laborer 10 Occupational 1 - Teacher. Educabde Retarded., Recode (Type A) and Type C (Mader) 2 - Teacher. Trainable Retarded. (Type B) 3 - Teacher. Hearing 4 - Teacher. Vision 5 - Speech Correction 6 - Visiting Teacher (Also Soc. worker) 7 - Diagnostician 8 - Other (Professors. Supts.. administrators. etc.) 11.12 Deck or Card Number 01 13.14 Project Director 01 - Felty: Costa Rica 02 - Friesen: Colombia and Peru 03 - Krieder: Europe 04 - Mader: Michigan 05 - Jordan: Mt. Pleasant. Mich. 06 - Dickie: Kansas 07 - Sinha: Ohio 15.16 Day of l to 31 Adminis- tration (Use the actual day) 17.18 Month of 01 - January Adminis- 02 - February tration 03 - March 279 CARD 1 Page 1-3 Co umn es Item.Detail Code Rec e Month of 10 - October Adminis- 11 - November tration 12 - December 19.20 Year of 64 - 1964 Adminis- 65 - 1965 tration 66 - 1966 21 Type of l - Group Adminis- 2 - Self-administered tration 3 - Interview. individual 9 - No information 22.23 Occupation (01-09. Rehab 5 Spec. Ed.) of Respon- 01 - A11 administrative persons. dent* public a private schools or agencies 02 - Teachers. elem. & secondary academic and vocational 03 - School Special Services (Psych.. soc. work. speech. etc.) 04 - University teachers. professors. researchers. specialists. etc. 05 - Medical (Doctors. Dentists. etc.) 06 - Other professional (Psych.. Soc. worker. Speech. etc.. not primarily in public or private schools) 07 - Para-medical (Nurse. O.T.. R.T.. P.T.. etc.) 08 - Unskilled Help (Hospital aide. janitor. any non-prof.. non-tech. role) 09 - Other 280 CARD 1 Page 1-4 ____92_..Colum- es 1292.12.92.43. 99:19. ma. 22.23 Occupation (10-19. Educational personnel of Respon- other than rehab. & spec. dent* (Con- ed.) tinued) 10 - Elementary teachers (include elem. v.p.'s. counselors. etc.) 11 — Secondary teachers 12 - Guidance a personnel workers (psych.. soc. work. counselor if not elementary) 13 - Other special services (Speech. spec. teacher. audiometric. etc.) 14 - Administrative (e1em.. sec.. central office 525,. including elem.. principal. sec. v.p. & prin.. etc.. if non-teach.) 15 - University teachers. professors. researchers. specialists. etc. 16 - 19 Open (20 - 25. Medical. other than rehab. & spec. ed.) 20 - General practitioners 21 - Surgeons 22 - Psychiatrists or psycho- analysts 23 - Dentists 24 - All other medical specialties 25 ~ Open 26 - Tech. s Prof.: Nurse. O.T.. P.T.. R.T.. Audio. etc. 27 - Non-tech. & non—prof.: aide. janitor. attendant. etc. 28 - 29 Open (30 - 39. Professional and Technical. not Spec. Ed. & Rehab. or Medical or Educ.) 30 - Engineers (degrees): civil. electrical. mechanical. etc. 281 CARD 1 Page 1-5 Cglumn-Qpes, Item Detail Code Recode 22.23 Occupation 31 - Lawyers. attorneys. of Respon- public accountants dent* (Con- 32 - Ministers. clergymen tinued) 33 - Musicians 34 - Clinical psychologist 35 - Researchers. scientists. not primarily in education 36 - Social workers. etc. 37 - 39 Other (40 - 45. Business and Industry. Managers. officials. prop.'s) 40 - Gov't and other bureaucratic officials: public adminis- trators and officers. union officials. stage inspectors. public utility. telephone officials. etc. 41 - Manufacturing. industrial officials. exec's. etc. 42 - Non—mfg.. service. industry: bankers. brokers. insurance. real estate 43 - Retail trades: food. clothing. furniture. gasoline. vehicle sales. etc. 44 - General: 1.6.. manager. executive. etc.. no other qualifications 45 — Open (46 - 49. Farm owners. operators and managers of large farms. e.g.. heavy equipment and/or many empl.) 46 - Farm.owner 47 - Farm operator (renter) 48 - Farm manager 49 - Open Column-Qges. 22.23 Item Detail Occupation of respon- dent* (Con- tinued) 282 CARD 1 Page 1-6 Code 50 - 51 - 52 — 6O - 61 - 62 - 63- 64- 65 - 66 - Recode (50 — 59. White Collar: office. clerical. etc.) Clerical & similar: tellers. bookkeepers. cashiers. secretaries. shipping clerks. attendents. telephone operators. library asst's. mail clerks and carriers. file clerks. etc. Sales workers: advertising. sales clerks. all mfg. wholesale. retail and other Small shopkeeper or dealer 59 Open (60 - 69. Blue Collar: craftsmen. foremen. and kindred work) Craftsmen: carpenters. bakers. electricians. plumbers. machinists. tailors. toolmakers. etc. Foreman: all construction. mfg.. transportation and communication. and other industries Servicemen: telegraph. telephone. etc. Mechanics and repairmen Shoemakers. roofers. painters. and plasterers Merchant marine. sailors (non-military) Bus and cab drivers. motormen. deliverymen. chauffeurs. truck and tractor drivers Operatives of all other mech. equipment (machine. vehicle. misc. mfg.) Column-Ques, 22.23 Item Detail Occupation of respon- dent* (Con- tinued) 283 2.5.3.9.; Page l-7 Code 68 - 70 - 72 - 73 - 74 - 7S - 76 - 77 - 78 - 79 - 80 - Recode 69 Open (70 - 74. Service and Private Household workers) Private household: laundress. housekeeper. cook Firemen and policemen. sheriffs. and baliffs Attendants. professional and personal (valet. masseur. misc. mfg.) Misc. attendents and services: hospital attendents. bootblacks. cooks Open (75 - 79..Military Personnel) Ranking officers. all services (Navy Commander and up. Army and Marines Colonel and up) Junior Officers. Army and Air Junior Officers. Navy and.Marines Non-commissioned personnel. Army and Air Non-commissioned personnel. Navy and Marines (80 - 86. Laborers) Small farm owners. renters. and farm laborers (small farm has no heavy equipment. provides minimal income and substance. employs 3 or less persons. full or part-time. except for migrant help) 284 CARD 1 Page l-8 Column;gges, Item.Detail Code Recode 22.23 Occupation 81 - Non-mfg.. non-industrial: of Respon- fishermen. hunters. dent* (Con- lumbermen. miners. tinued) gardeners. tea-sters. garage laborers. etc. 82 - Manufacturing of durable goods: wood. clay. stone (stonecutter). metal. glass. plastic. machinery. of all kinds 83 - Mfg. of non-durable goods: food (bakery. beverages. etc.) tobacco. clothing. cloth. paper. printing. chemicals. rubber. leather. eta. 84 - Non—mfg. industries: railroad. construction. transportation. workers. etc. 85 - 86 Open 87 - Persons that haven't worked. such as housewives. students. or others who have never had a regular occupation. 88 - Don't know 99 - No information. no answer. refusal Instructions for Coder: OCCUPATION, COLUMNS 22-23, Coding information is derived from.two sources: 1. Occupational description of groups as listed on the administrator's summary sheet. 2. Personal statements by the respondents in Question 39 of the questionnaire. Question 39 is the primary source of information. If vague. incomplete. or otherwise unscorable. use summary sheet as supplementary data or score entirely from summary sheet. * 285 CARD 1 Page l-9 Column-Qges. Item Detail Code Recode 24 Current 1 - Employed or Self-employed Employment 2 - Retired Status* 3 — Temporarily out of work 4 - Housewife. but formerly employed 5 - Unable to work (other than retired or housewife) but formerly employed 6 - Student or persons trained for employment but not working for various reasons 9 - No Information * Instructions for Coder: EMPLOYMENT STATUS. COLUMN 24, Code from.questionnaire Question 3 . if person clearly states employment status. If no employment stated. and no indication with certainty from.administrator's summary sheet that person is part of an employed group. score 2, l D" Q 25 1 All questions in 1 strongly disagree thru thru handicapped 2 - 2. disagree 44 20 persons scale 3 agree are to be scored 4 strongly agree from raw data. See instructions below.* II as * Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING. CQLUMHS 25-44, NOTE: CERTAIN STEPS AND PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME FOR THE EDUCATION SCALE AS FOR THE HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE. THESE PROCEDURES WILL BE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. **1. Reverse the content response numbering for the Handicapped Persons Scale (NOT the intensity response number) for items lo g. _6_. Li. and E. as follows: Column:Qges, Item.Detail Code 3. 286 CARD 1 The number of response directly on data sheets. is changed to .1. .2. 1 .4. Special instructions for NO RESPONSE. Page l-lO Recode and scored :1 .31 .2. l Count the number of NO RESPONSE items. If more than.§_occur. do not score respondent for this scale. than §_occur in sequence. do not score this scale. If there are 6 or less in 3 or legs in sequence. the NO RESPONSE If more respondent for total. and statement is to be scored either l_or‘3.by the random procedure of coin flipping. If a head is obtained. the score assigned will be 1 2. ‘If a tail is obtained. the score assigned will be TOTAL THE RAW SCORE§ POR.EACH RESPONDENT AND WRITE THE TOTALS ON THE TRANSCRIPTION DATA SHEET DIRECTLY BELOW'THE COLUMN TOTALED.* * By this procedure. the possible range of scores is from 2‘10 9.2- Doubling the obtained score will approximate scores obtained by the method of Yuker. g§_gl, (1960. p. 10) 4. INTENSITY RAW'SCORES POR.EACH STATEMENT ARE TO BE SCORED ON THE DATA SHEET EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR.ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE: i.e.. IE ;_IS CIRCLED IN THE INTENSITY SECTION OF QUESTION ONE. SCORE IT AS‘l ON THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE DATA SHEET. Dichotomization Procedures (i.e.. for MSA - applies to all scales). a) Using raw data scores (i.e.. the actual number circled by the respondent) via the Hafterson Egg.Program.on the CDC 3600. determine the point of least error for each item on the content scales. 287 CARD 1 Page l-ll W Item Detail Code Rec e b) e) d) f) 9) Using this point (i.e.. between ;.and.3, or between 3 and g. or between 3 and 1) rescore the items. via recode cards. as Q. ; via the Hafterson MSA Programion the CDC 3600 to detegpgpe which items form a scale. Run at both .01 and .05 level. Ppr'Handicappgg Persons Scale. items are scored Q_above the column break. l_below the column break. For all other Scale scoring. the reverse is true. Items are scored.;_above the column break. 9 below the column break. Using the same procedure in point S—a above. determine the CUT ppints for the intensity cqupnent of each item. Enter the MSA Program with the CUT ppints for the intensity copppnent and scale as outlined in Point No.‘p_for content. Adjusted total scores for content and intensity. Sum the dichotomized content and intensity scores (i.e.. Q, ;) obtained by the above procedure for each respondent on those items that sealed for both content and intensity. Maximum score will be 1 x the number of the same items that scaled on both content and intensity. Zero Point. Using only the items that scaled for both content and intensity. plot and deter- mine the "zero point” for each cultural group (or other desired groupings) via the method detailed on pages 221-234 by Guttman (1950). 45 thru 64 1 thru 20 Handicapped Persons 1 - 1. not strongly at all Scale Intensity 2 2. not very strongly 3 - 3. fairly strongly 4 - 4. very strongly 288 CARD 1 Page 1-12 Column-Qpesa Item Detail Code Recode * Instructipns fpr Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS §CALE. INTENSITYI CQLUMNS 45-64. 1. Except for NO RESPONSE. intensity scores are to be determined as noted in the preceding section regarding content. 2. Those scales which are rejected because of an excess of NO RESPONSE items in respect to content will of course also be rejected for intensity. Intensity questions which are unscored. but which occur when the content part of the question is scpred. will be scored as follows: If content score is 1 or _4_. score intensity 1. If content score is 3_or ;. score intensity just below the mean intensity score for that item: i.e.. mean intensity of the group. 3. Intensity questions which are unscored. and which occur when the content part of the question is also unscored. will be scored at the highest point below the respondent's own median on the other intensity questions in the questionnaire: i.e.. if respondent generally scored intensity questions either g_or.;. so that the median was in between 3 and _4_. score NO RESPONSE _2_. and so forth. 65 3.4.6. Education 1 - 1. strongly disagree thru 10.11. Scale 2 - 2. disagree 74 12.13. Traditional.3 - 3. agree 14.18. Content 4 - 4. strongly agree l9 Resppnses* * Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, TRADITIONALI CONTENTI COEUMNS 65-74. 1. Items are to be scored as circled by the respondent. 289 CARD 1 Page 1-13 Column-Opes. Item Detail Code Recode 2. Pollow the procedures outlined in caps on Page 1-12. Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to scpre only those items indicated above as applying to the traditional scale. content. Column—OpesI 102030 4.5 6.7 10 11.12 13.14 15.16 17.18 19.20 21 22.23 290 CARD 2 Item Detail Code Nation and Same as Card 1. page 1-1 Location Group Number 01 - 99 Respondent 01 .. 99 Number Sex of Same as Card 1. page 1-1 Respondent Occupational Same as Card 1. page 1-2 Recode (Gen- eral) Occupational Same as Card 1. page 1-2 Recode (Mader) Deck or Card 02 Number Project Same as Card 1. page 1-2 Director Day of l - 31 Adminis- tration Month of l - 12 Adminis- tration Year of Same as Card 1. page 1-3 Adminis- _tration Type of Same as Card 1. page 1-3 Adminis- tration Page 2-1 Recode Occupation Same as Card 1. pages 1-3. l-4. of Respon- 1—5. 1-6. 1-7. 1-8 dent Column-Opes. 24 3.4.6. thru 10.11. 291 CARD 2 Item Detail Code Education 1 Scale. Tradi—Z l. 2. Page 2-2 Recode not strongly at all not very strongly 33 12.13. ional. 3 — 3. fairly strongly 14.18. Intensity 4 - 4. very strongly 19 Responses* * Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SQAEE, TRADITIONAL. INTENSITY. COLUMNS 24-33 Intensity questions are scored as indicated in caps on pages 1-9 and l-10 and as noted before. Handicapped Persons Scale. pages 1-9 and 1-10. instructions 1 through 5. 34 1.2.5. thru 7.8.9. 43 15.16. 17.20 Education Scale. Pppgres- sive. 92g: as. Responses* buNH bwnturd Q Q strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree * Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE. CONTENTI COLUMNS 34-43 1. Items are to be scored exactly as circled. 2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages 1-9 and 1-10. Handicappgd Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as belonging to the progressive scale. 44 1.2.5. thru 7:809: 53 15.16. 17.20 Education Scale. Prpgres- sive max Responses* ubUNH not strongly at all not very strongly fairly strongly very strongly * Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE. INTENSITY. COLUMNS 44-53 Same as instructions for Education Scale. Prpgressive content. page 2-1. 292 CARD 2 Page 2-3 Qolumnzgpes, Item Detail Code Recode 54.55 Raw S Value scale. 01 - 32 score Suppppt no score* score** 56.57 Raw C Value scale. 01 - 32 score Conformity no score* score** 58.59 Raw R value scale. 01 - 32 score Recpgnition no score* score** 60.61 Raw I Value scale. 01 - 32 score Indepgndence no score* 62.63 Raw B Value scale. 01 - 32 score Benevolence no score* score** 64.65 Raw L Value scale. 01 - 32 score Leadership no score* score** * All 99's must be rescored at the median of the distribution ** for card punching. i.e.. otherwise they.add.into the computations: Entries for columns 54-65 are obtained through scoring according to SRA Manual for Survey of Inteppprsonal Values. Science Research Associates. Inc.. 259 East Erie Street. Chicago. Illinois. 1960. For scoring. coders should use the special keys adapted from the SRA English edition of the scale. Although the summed scores of the six value scales should total 90. scores between 84 and 95 are acceptable. 293 CARD 2 Page 2-4 Column-Qpes, Item Detail Code Recode 66.67 Sum of Adjusted totals based on 00 - ? (Check dich. item for no. to use here) item dichotomization. scores. H,P, no score** 1 - 20 Scale. Content (1) Content 68.69 Sum.of {Adjusted totals based on 00 - ? item item.dichotomization. H:P, no score** scores. §cale. Intensity (1) 1 - 20 Intensity 70.71 Sum of Adjusted totals 00 - ? item based on item no score** scores dichotomization. 3.4.6.10. Education 11.12.13. Traditional 14.18.19 Scale. Contept (l) 72.73 Sum of Adjusted totals 00 - ? item based on item no score** scores dichotomization. 3.4.6.10. Education 11.12.13. Traditional 14.18.19 Scale. Intensity (1) 74.75 Sum of Adjusted totals 00 - ? item based on item. no score** scores dichotomization. 1.2.5.7. Education 8.9.15. Prpgressive 16.17.20 Scale. Content (1) 76.77 Sum of Adjusted totals 00 - ? item. based on item no score** scores dichotomization. 1.2.5.7. Education 8.9.15. Progressive 16.17.20 Scale. Intensity (1) ** See footnote. next page. (1) n u u u 294 CARD 2 Page 2-5 Column-Qpes, Item Detail Code Recode *9 (1) All 99's must be rescored at the median of distribution for card punching. i.e.. otherwise they add into the computations: See Card 1, Page 1-11. instruction No. S-f. to ascertain how adjusted total scores are obtained. Cplumn-Qpes, 1.2.3 4.5 6.7 10 11.12 13.14 15.16 17.18 19.20 21 22.23 295 9.32.; Page 3-1 Item.Detail Code Recode Nation and Same as Card 1. Page 1-1 Location Group Number 01 - 99 Respondent 01 — 99 Number Sex of Same as Card 1. Page Respondent Occupational Same as Card 1. Page Recode(Gen- eral) Occupational Same as Card 1. Page Recode (Mader) Deck or Card 03 Number Project Same as Card 1. Page Director Day of 1 - 31 Adminis- tration Month of 1 - 12 Adminis- tration Year of Same as Card 1. Page 1-3 Adminis- tration Type of Same as Card 1. Page 1-3 Adminis- tration Occupation Same as Card 1. Pages 1-3. 1-4. of Respon- 1-5. 1-6. 1-7. and 1-8 dent 98.8.2.2 Page 3-2 ColumnzgpesI Item.Detail Code Recode 24 1A Level of Beep Q'aire Educ. l - 1. Elem. School Contact* 2 - 2. Sec. School 3 - 3. University 4 - 4. Other as specified 25 18 Next Best Q'aire 1 - 1 2 - 2 3 - 3 4 - 4 26 1C Third Begt Q'aire l - 1 2 - 2 3 - 3 SHHE 4 - 4 27 2(1-9) Recode 1 - Yes. Personal from 1_thru §_= 2 - No. Personal Question 9 - No Contact No. 30 28 2(1-9) Recode 1 - Yes. Impersonal from §.thru §_- 2 - No. Impersonal Question 9 - No Contact No. 30 29 Open Open * If Box A. B. and C are not filled in. attempt to score from examining questions 2-6. score _9_. If unable to answer. Column-Ones, 30 2(1-9) thru Q'aire 38 39 40 41 Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire 297 CARD 3 Page 3-3 Item Detail gpde Recode Type of 1 - Father. etc. Educational 2 - Some relative Contact. 3 - Self Score each 4 - Friend of these 5 - Neighbor alternatives 6 - Studied as: 7 - Know a little Yes - 1. 8 - Nothing (i.e.. if 9 - Other circled) No -.g (i.e.. if uncircled) OR 9 No Response Amount of 1 - 1. Never * Contact 2 - 2. 3 months 3 - 3. 3 months to 6 months 4 - 4. 6 months to 1 year 5 - 5. 1 year to 3 years 6 - 6. 3 years to 5 years 7 - 7. 5 years to 10 years 8 — 8. Over 10 years 9 - 9. Over 15 years Percent of 1 - 2. less than 10% * income from 2 - 3. 10 to 20% Education 3 - 4. 25 to 50% 4 - 5. 50 to 75% 5 - 6. 75 to 100% 6 — 1. no work Enjoyment of l - 2. disliked * Educational 2 - 3. not much werk 3 - 4. somewhat 4 - 5. enjoyed 5 — 1. no experience Column-Ques, 42 6 Q'aire 298 CARD 3 Page 3-4 Item Detail gpde Recode Alternative - 3. unavailable * 1 WOrk 2 - 1. not acceptable 3 - 5. not quite acceptable 4 - 6. acceptable 5 - 4. no information 6 - 2. no experience NOTE: Questions 7 and 8 omitted. 43.44 9 Q'aire 45 10 Q'aire 46 11 Q'aire Age 20 - 20 years 21 - 21 40 - 40 Community in 1 - 4. city * which reared 2 — 3. city suburb if more than 3 - 2. country town one is deckei 4 country try to 5 - 5. other I [—.l ~ determine in 9 — No response which one the respondent spent most of the time. If impossible. try to choose a median (i.e.. country. city. score country town) Employment 1 - 4. city * community 2 - 3. city suburb 3 - 2. country town 4 - 1. country 5 - 5. other 9 - No response Column-Qpes. 47 12 Q'aire 48 13 Q'aire 49.50 14 Q'aire 51.52 15 (A or B) Q'aire 53 16 Q'aire CARD 3 Page 3-5 Item.Detail Code Recodegi Recent 1 - 4. city * Residence 2 - 3. city suburb 3 - 2. country town 4 - 1. country 5 - 5. other 9 - No response Marital 1 - 5. married * Status 2 - 1. single 3 - 2. divorced 4 - 3. widowed 5 - 4. separated 9 - No response Number of l — 01 * Children 2 - 02 If blank. . check Ques. . 13. If 10 - 10 single. score‘QQ: if married. leave blank. DO NOT USE .22.; Yearly 01 - less than $1000 * Income 02 - $1.000 to $1.999 03 - $2.000 to $2.999 If no . response. . gp_pp§_score 10 - $9.000 to $9.999 22; to 22 - $21.000 and over Comparative l - 5. much lower * Income 2 - 4. lower 3 - 3. about the same 4 - 2. higher 5 - 1. much higher 6 - 8. no opinion 9 - 9. no response 299 300 CARD 3 Page 3-6 Column-Qpes. Igempgetail Code Recode* 54.55 17 Brothers 1,: 01 Q'aire If the 2 - 02 respondent . answers . only one 10 ~ 10 question (17 or 18) and other is blank. assume it to be zero. DO NOT SCORE NO RESPONSE 22} 56.57 18 Sisters Same as number of brothers Q'aire (58.59 None Siblings - l - 01 Obtain by summing 15 - 15 Questions 17 a 18. Columns 54.55 and 56.57 60 19 Father's l - 5. much lower * Q'aire Income: 2 - 4. lower Comparative 3 - 3. about the same 4 - 2. higher 5 - 1. much higher 6 - 8. no opinion 61 20 Religion 1 - 1. Roman Catholic Q'aire 2 - 2. Protestant 3 - 3. Jewish 4 - 4. None 5 - 5. Other 9 - No response Column-Qpes, 62 63 64 65 66 67 21 Q'aire 22 Q'aire 23 Q'aire 24 Q‘aire 25 Q'aire 26 Q'aire CARD 3 Item.Detail Code Importance l - 1. not very of Religion 2 — 2. fairly Self state- 3 - 3. very ment Amount of l - 1. none personal 2 - 2. less than 10% relation- 3 - 3. 10 to 30% ship on 4 - 4. 30 to 50% the job 5 - 5. 50 to 70% 6 - 6. 70 to 90% 7 - 7. over 90% 8 - 8. no contact Importance l - 1. not at all of personal 2 - 2. not very relation- 3 - 3. fairly ships on the 4 - 4. very job Diffusion l - 1. none of job 2 - 2. less than 10% relation- 3 - 3. 10 to 30% ships 4 - 4. 30 to 50% 5 - 5. 50 to 70% 6r- 6. 70 to 90% 7 - 7. over 90% 9 - 9. no response Number of l - 1. none or one Social 2 - 2. two Classes 3 - 3. three 4 - 4. more than three 6 - 8. no opinion Social 1 - 1. lower Class 2 - 2. middle Position: 3 - 3. upper Self 4 - 4. other 5 - 8. no opinion 9 - 9. no response 301 Page 3—7 Recode* 302 CARD 3 Page 3-8 Co umn- es Item Detail Code Rpcode* 68 27 Social Class 1 - 1. lower * Q'aire Position: 2 - 2. muddle Father 3 - 3. upper 4 - 4. other 5 - 8. no opinion 9 - 9. no response 69 28 Amount of 1 - 1. three years or less * Q'aire Education 2 - 2. six years or less If more 3 - 3. nine years or less than one 4 - 4. twelve years or less answer is 5 - 5. some college circled. 6 - 6. degree choose the 7 - 7. work beyond degree highest 8 - 8. advanced degree amount or 9 - 9. other determine the appropriate answer 70 29 Education: 1 - 1. much less * Q'aire Self-Com- 2 - 2. less parative 3 - 3. average 4 - 4. more 5 - 5. much more 6 - 8. no opinion 71 30 Education: 1 - 1. much less * Q'aire Father - 2 - 2. less Comparative 3 - 3. average 4 - 4. more 5 — 5. much more 6 — 8. no opinion 72 31 Type of l - 1. rent house * Q'aire Living 2 - 2. rent apartment Arrange- 3 - 3. rent room ment 4 - 4. purchase room and board 5 - 5. own apartment 6 — 6. own house 7 - 7. other 303 CARD 3 Page 3-9 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 73 32 Rent Per 1 — $20 or less * (A or B) Month 2 - 21 - 40 (dollars) 3 - 41 - 75 4 - 76 — 125 5 - 126 - 200 6 - 201 - 300 7 - 300 or more 8 - Don't know 9 - 9. no response Column-Qpes, 1.2.3. 17.18 19.20 21 304 9852.2 Page 4-1 Item Detail Code Recode* Nation and Same as Card 1. Page 1-1 Location Group Number 01 - 99 Respondent 01 - 99 Number Sex of Same as Card 1. Page 1-1 Respondent Occupational Same as Card 1. Page 1-2 Recode (Gen- eral) Occupational Same as Card 1. Page 1-2 Recode (Mader) Deck or Card 04 Number Project Same as Card 1. Page 1—2 Director Day of 1 - 31 Adminis- tration Month of l - 12 Adminis- tration Year of Same as Card 1. Page 1-3 Adminis- tration Type of Sruc as Card 1. Pegr 1«3 Adminis— tration 305 CARD 4 Page 4-2 Column—Ques. Item Detail Code RecoCe* 22.23 Occupation Same as Card 1. Pages 1-3. of 1—4. 1-5. 1-6. 1-7. 1—8 Respondent 24 33—1 Satisfaction l - Poor * with Elemen- 2 - Fair tary Schools 3 — Good 4 - Excellent 8 - Don't Know ** 25 33-2 Satisfaction Same as ** * with Secon- dary Schools 26 33—3 Satisfaction Same as ** * with Univer- sities 27 33-4 Satisfaction Same as ** * with Business- men 28 33—5 Satisfaction Same as ** * with Labor 29 33-6 Satisfaction Same as ** s with Government 30 33—7 Satisfaction Same as ** * with Health Service 31 33-8 Satisfaction Same as ** s with Churches ** If feasible. rescore all §;§_at median of distribution for further data analysis after looking at the frequency distribution from the computer print out. i.e.. would require recoding or card punching. Column-Ques, 32 33 34 35 36 37.38 39 40 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 306 CARD—1 Page 4-3 Item Detail_ Code Recode* Time in 1 - 1. less than a year * Present 2 - 2. one to two years Community 3 - 3. three to six years 4 - 4. seven to ten years 5 - 5. over ten years Residency l - 1. yes Change 2 - 2. no 9 - 9. no response Employment 1 - 1. yes Change 2 — 2. no 9 — 9. no response Frequency 1 - 1. none * of Resi- 2 - 2. one time dency 3 - 3. two to three times Change 4 — 4. four to six times (last ten 5 - 5. seven to ten times years) 6 - 6. over ten times Frequency 1 - 1. none * of Job 2 - 2. one time Change 3 - 3. two to three times (last ten 4 - 4. four to six times years) 5 - 5. seven to ten times 6 - 6. over ten times Occupation Same as Card 1. Pages 1-3. (Specific) 1-4. 1-5. 1-6. 1-7. 1-8 Observance 1 - l. seldom * of Religious 2 - 2. sometimes Rules 3 - 3. usually 4 - 4. almost always Health 1 - 5. yes * Practice 2 - 4. maybe Change 3 - 2. probably not 4-1.110 5 - 3. Don't know 307 CARD 4 Page 4-4 Column—Qpes, Item Detail gods Recode* 41 42 Child 1 - 5. strongly agree * Rearing 2 - 4. slightly agree Practices 3 - 3. don't know Change 4 - 2. slightly disagree 5 - 1. strongly disagree 42 43 Birth 1 - 1. always wrong * Control 2 — 2. usually wrong Practices 3 - 3. probably right 4 - 4. always right 43 44 Change of l - 5. strongly agree * Political 2 - 4. slightly agree Leaders 3 - 3. don't know 4 - 2. slightly disagree 5 - 1. strongly disagree 44 45 Aid to l - 5. strongly agree * Education 2 - 4. slightly agree 3 - 3. don't know 4 - 2. slightly disagree 5 - 1. strongly disagree 45 46 Personal 1 - 4. very easy * Change - 2 - 3. somewhat easy ways 3 - 2. slightly difficult 4 - 1. very difficult 46 47 Commitment 1 — 1. agree strongly * to Rules 2 - 2. agree slightly 3 - 3. don't know 4 - 4. disagree slightly 5 - 5. disagree strongly 47 48 Routine l - 1. agree strongly * Job Duties 2 - 2. agree slightly 3 - 3. don't know 4 - 4. disagree slightly 5 - 5. disagree strongly 48 49 Parental Same * Ties Column-Ques. 49 50 51 52 53 50 51 52 53 Q-HP 308 $8.14 Page 4-5 Item Detail §_ve Recode* Helpfulness Same * to Friends Vs. Others Planning Same * for Future Necessary l 1. nothing * for 2 2. money Happiness 3 3. friends 4 4. job 5 5. health 6 6. other Possibility 1 nothing * of 2 marriage and divorce Happiness 3 friends 4 religion (satisfaction with life) 5 money 6 job 7 education 8 health (mental and physical) 9 no response HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUESTIONNAIRE Primary Contact Group romuoxmewww l. bline * 2. partially blind 3. deaf (and mute) 4. partially deaf 5. crippled 6. disfigured 7. spastic 8. speech 0 none Column—gues. 54 2 Q-HP 309 CARD 4 Page 4-6 ltem.Detail die Recode*_ Other Contact Groups ates. If there was no contact and * questions are not answered. score 9, The score for this question is the m of the response alternatives circled. i.e.. scores can range from 55-570.00.000pen0000.....openOO............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 58 59 60 61 3 Q-HP Q-HP Q-HP Q-HP Varieties of Contact With Handi- capped Persons If a single response is circled. use the digit-to digit system. If more than § 4 F<::5 6 7 one is circled use the combined categories and code as l or _§_. Amount of Contact Ease of Avoidance Material Gain from Contact waH Lil-but)!“ 4>69a>H 6. father. etc. * 5. other relative 4. worked 3. friend 2. studied 1 0 little 9. self less than ten * ten to fifty fifty to 100 100 to 500 over 500 great difficulty * considerable difficulty some inconvenience no inconvenience paid * credit no rewards paid and credit CARD 4 Page 4-7 Column-Ques, Item.Detail Code Recode* 62 7 Per cent of - 1. less than 10% * l Q-HP Income from 2 - 2. 10 to 25% WOrk with 3 - 3. 25 to 50% Handicapped 4 - 4. 50 to 75% 5 - 5. over 75% 6 - 6. if 3 is circled in No. 6 or if they have never worked with handicapped 63 8 Feelings l - l. disliked. great * Q-HP About 2 - 2. disliked. little Contact 3 - 3. liked. some 4 - 4. definitely enjoyed 64 9 Amount of l — 1. less than 10 * Q-HP Contact 2 - 2. 10 to 50 with 3 - 3. 50 to 100 Mentally 4 - 4. 100 to 500 Retarded 5 - 5. over 500 65 10 .Amount of Same * Q-HP Contact with Emotionally 1.1.; 66.67 Sum of Handicapped 00 - 80 item Persons Do Not Use g2! scores Scale. 1-20 Total Content Cont. EggIscore entry on transcription sheet 68.69 Sum of Handicapped 00 - 80 item Persons Do Not Use 22} scores Scale. 1-20 Total Inten- Int. sity Raw score entry on transcription sheet 311 CARD 4 Page 4—8 Column-Ques. ltem Detail Code Recode* 72.73 Sum of item scores 304060 10.11. 12.13. 14.18. 19 74,75 Sum of item scores 1:215: 7.8.9. 15.16. 17.20 Sum of item scores 1.2.5. 7.8.9. 15.16. 17.20 70.71 Sum of Education 00 - 40 item Scale. Tradi-Do Not Use 22? scores tional . 33! 3.4.6. Content score 10.11. entry on trans- 12.13. cription sheet 14.18. 19 Education 00 Scale. Tradr'Do tional. gag, Intensity score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00 Scale. Do Progressive. Raw Content. score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00 Scale. Do Progressive Raw Intensity. score entry on transcription sheet Not Use 22* Not Use'ggf Not Use 22? APPENDIX B B-4 Data Transcription Sheet 312 ttitudes Toward Education: 313 Michigan Study Handicapped Persensi Educatien Scale - Traditional Educatien Scale - Pre ressive Scale (Card 1) Card 1 Card 2 Card 1 ICard 2 Centent Intensity Centent ntensity Content ntensity (Cel) (Cel) (901) (C01) (C01) (Cel) ——————————————— +----q.-—-—- --— l. (25) ___(45) 3. (65) ___(25) l. _____(35) _____(45) 2. (25) ___(46) 4. __(66) (26) 2. ___(36) ____(46) 3. __ __ 6. ____(67) ___(27) 5. ___(37) _____(47) 4. __ __ 10. ___(68) (28) 7. _(3e) ____(4e) 5. __ __ 11. (69) ___(29) 8. ___(39) ___(49) 6. ____ ____ 12. ___j70) ___(30) 9. (40) ___(50) 7. __ __ 13. __(71) (31) 15. ____(41) ____(51) 8. __ __ 14. __(72) (32) 16. (42) ___(52) 9. __ __ 18. ___(73) __(33) 17. (43) ____(53‘) 10. ____(34) ____(54) 19. _____(74) ______(34) 20. (44) _____(54) 11. ___, ___. - a 12. ____ ____ ____ .___ ___, ____ __ __ 1 l4..___ ____ 15. ____(39) ____(59) 16. ___ .___ 17. ____ ____ Location p 18. ___, .___ 19. ____ ____ Group 20. ___(44) ____(64) Respendent Ne. APPENDIX B 3-5 FCC I and 11 Variable- Computer Print-Out Code 314 AT‘I‘ITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED AND NON-HANDICAPPED PERSONS: A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY MICHIGAN STUDY VARIABLE DESCRIPTION BY: 1. IBM Card and Column Location 2. Field No. from.F.C.C. programs I and II 3. Individual Item and Scale Location 4. Category: type of variable 5. Name: item content March. 1966 315 FCC I Cari 1 Field No. Question. Variable Name Col. 1 Face Sheet of Location within 3 Scales Michigan 2 Face Sheet of Sex 8 Scales 3 39 Q'aire Special Education 9 Occupation 4 Face Sheet of Type of Adminis- 21 Scales tration 5 37 Q'aire Current Employment 24 Status 6-25 H-P Scale H-P Conent 25-44 26-45 H-P Scale H-P Intensity 45-64 46-55 Education Scale Trad. Education - 65-74 Content Card 2 First 23 Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.) 56-65 Education Scale Trad. Education- 24-33 Intensity 66-75 Education Scale Prog. Education- 34-43 Content 76-85 Education Scale Prgg. Education- 44-53 Intensity Card 3 First 23 Columns §A§§ as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.) 86 l-A-Q'aire Level of Educ. 24 Contact-First 87 l-B-Q'aire Level of Educ. 25 Contact-Second 88 l-C—Q'aire Level of Educ. 26 Contact—Third 89 2-Q'aire Contact-Personal 27 90 2-Q'aire Contact-Impersonal 28 Open Open Open 29 316 317 sec I (Cont'd.) Field No. Qgestion Variggle Name Col. 91-99 2-Q'aire Contact-(Type of 30-38 Education) 100 3-Q'aire Contact-(Amt. of 39 Education) 101 4-Q'aire Contact-(Gain from 40 Education) 102 S-Q'aire Contact-(Enjoyment- 41 Education) 103 6-Q'aire Contact-(Alternatives 42 to Edu.) 104 lo—Q'aire Early Youth Community 45 105 ll-Q'aire Employment Community 46 (recent) 106 lZ-Q'aire Residence Community 47 (recent) _ 107 lB-Q'aire Marital Status 48 108 l6-Q'aire Income (comparative- 53 self fam.) 109 l9-Q'aire Income (father 60 comparative) 110 20-Q‘aire Religious affiliation 61 111 21-Q'aire Religion (Importance) 62 112 22-Q'aire Personalism (job- 3 amount) 113 23-Q'aire Personalism (job- 64 importance of) 114 24-Q'aire Personalism (job- 65 diffusion) 115 25-Q'aire Social class (number 66 of) 116 26-Q'aire Social class position 67 (self) 117 27-Q'aire Social class position 68 father 118 28-Q'aire Education (self-amount)69 119 29-Q'aire Education (self- 70 comparative) 120 30-Q'aire Education (father— 71 comparative) 121 3l-Q'aire Housing (type of) 72 122 32-Q'aire Housing (rental-month) 73 318 FCC I (Cont'd.) Field No, Question Variable Name Col. Card 4 First 23 Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.) 123 33-1-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 24 tion (Elementary Schools) 124 33-2-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 25 tion (Secondary Schools) 125 33-3-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 26 tion (Universities) 126 33-4-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 27 tion (Businessmen) 127 33-5-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 28 tion (Labor) 128 33-6-Q'aire Institutional satisfac- 29 tion (gov't.) 129 33-7-Q'aire Institutional satisfac— 30 tion (Health Services) 130 33-8-Q'airc Institutional satisfac— 31 tion (Churches) 131 34-Q'aire Residence (current length)32 132 35-Q'aire Residence (change—recent) 33 133 36-Q'aire Jab (change-recent) 34 134 37-Q'aire Residence (change- 35 frequency) 135 38-Q'aire Job (change-frequency) 36 136 40-Q'aire Religiousity (norm? 39 conformity) 137 41-Q'aire Change orientation 4O (health—practice) 138 42-Q'aire Change orientation (child 41 rearing) 139 43-Q'aire Change orientation (birth 42 control) 140 44-Q'aire Change orientation 43 (political leaders) 141 45-Q'aire Education (aid to) 44 142 46-Q'aire Change orientation (self) 45 143 47-Q'aire Change orientation (self- 46 rule adherance) 144 48—Q'aire Change orientation (self- 47 routine job) 319 sec I (Cont'd.) Field Noz Question Variable Name C01. 145 49-Q'aire Personalism.(familialism— 48 parental ties) 146 SO-Q'aire Personalism (other 49 orientation) 147 Sl-Q'aire Future Orientation 50 (planning) 148 52-Q'aire Future Orientation 51 (happiness prerequisites) 149 53-Q'aire Possibility of happiness 52 150 1-Q-HP Contact Group (primary) 53 151 2-Q-HP Contact Group (secondary) 54 152 3-Q-HP Contact (varieties) 58 153 4-Q-HP Contact (amount) 59 154 5-Q-HP Contact (ease of 60 avoidance) 155 6-Q-HP Contact (gain from) 61 156 7-Q-HP Contact 0% of income 62 from) 157 8-Q-HP Contact (enjoyment of) 63 158 9-Q-HP Contact (mentally 64 retarded) 159 lO-Q-HP Contact (emotionally 65 disturbed) Card 5 First 23 Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.) 160-212 Gordon Scales Interpersonal values 24—76 Questions 1-52 Value Scale Card 6 First 23 Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.) 213—249 Gordon Scales Interpersonal Values 24-61 Questions 53-90 Value Scale IV. RRRIES HICHIGRN STATE UN LIB Ill\I‘lllllmIIINIHWINUINII INIIHIWIHIH 31293015 1432 I)“ 9