ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE NATURE AND DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDES OF COLLEGE COUNSELORS TOWARD PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS by Keith E. Palmerton This study was designed to study the nature and determinants of attitudes of college counselors toward physically disabled persons. The several possible determinants of attitudes considered were perceived amount and perceived nature of contact, attitudes toward traditional and progressive education, and amount of information or knowledge about disabled persons. The population of college counselors used in this study was college counselors working in universities, in the Continental United States of America, with student populations of 15,000 or more, who were listed as "college counselors" in either the APA or the APGA membership directories or in the most recent issues of the colleges' (or the universities') catalogues. A total of 361 col- lege counselors were so listed. A random sample of 130 college counselors was selected and instrument packets with self-administering directions were mailed to them. However, only 108 subjects actually received packets and, of this number, 81 subjects returned their instruments Keith E. Palmerton in usable condition. Thus, 75% of the subjects who re- ceived instrument packets returned them. The instrument packet mailed to the counselors in- cluded: (a) the Attitudes Toward Education Scale; (b) the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP); (c) a Personal Questionnaire; (d) the General Information Inventory; (e) a mark—sense answer sheet; and (f) self— administering directions. The amount of time taken to complete the instruments varied from three-quarters of an hour to two hours. Four hypotheses, based on several theoretical con- siderations, were formulated and tested. The first hy- pothesis stated that high frequency of contact with dis- abled persons would be positively related to more intense attitudes toward disabled persons. The second hypothesis stated that high frequency of contact with disabled per— sons, when combined with (a) enjoyment of the contact, (b) easy avoidance of the contact, and (0) available alternative rewarding contacts, would be positively re- lated to positive attitudes toward disabled persons. The third hypothesis stated that unfavorable attitudes toward traditional education and favorable attitudes toward pro- gressive education would be positively related to positive attitudes toward disabled persons. A fourth hypothesis stated that high amount of information or knowledge about disabled persons would be positively related to positive Keith E. Palmerton attitudes toward disabled persons. The hypotheses were tested by means of analysis of variance, zero-order correlations, and multiple and partial correlations. The first hypothesis was considered confirmed. The confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that, for college counselors, high frequency of personal contact with dis- abled persons does positively relate to increased intensity of attitudes. Contrary to the findings of two previous studies (Friesen, 1966; Sinha, 1966), a positive relation was found between high frequency of contact and positive attitudes toward disabled persons. The second hypothesis was confirmed only conditionally. It was found that high frequency of contact, enjoyment of contact, and available alternative rewarding contacts did relate positively to positive attitudes toward disabled persons. However, ease of avoidance of contact related negatively at a significant level with positive attitudes toward disabled persons. It was suggested that a problem with concept equivalence accounted for the unexpected nega- tive relationship. The suggestion was made that the "ease of avoidance" item, which was intended to refer to the matter of volition was interpreted by the college counse- lors as being concerned with acting professionally and responsibly toward disabled persons. That is, the col- lege counselor may have interpreted the phrase "easy to avoid contact" as being similar to easy to "side-step" Keith E. Palmerton or "dodge" or "turn one's back to" contact with disabled persons. If the above considerations are valid, then the four contact variables may, in fact, join to predict positive attitudes toward disabled persons and the hypothesis may be conditionally confirmed. The third hypothesis was not confirmed. The findings related to this hypothesis suggest that the relationship between attitudes toward education and attitudes toward disabled persons is unclear for college counselors. The relationships between unfavorable attitudes toward tradi- tional education, favorable attitudes toward progressive education, and attitudes toward disabled persons were in the hypothesized direction, but they were not statistically significant. The fourth and last hypothesis was also unconfirmed. The findings revealed, in fact, a small negative relation- ship between amount of knowledge and positive attitudes toward disabled persons. It was suggested that the nega- tive relationship may be attributed to the possibility that better informed counselors actually see physically disabled persons as having special problems and as need— ing special treatment. The ATDP instrument, which at- tempts to measure attitudes toward disabled persons, is built on the assumption that viewing disabled persons as "different" than physically normal persons is equivalent Keith E. Palmerton to holding negative attitudes toward disabled persons. Therefore, the instrument may ironically identify the well—informed, who see disabled persons as actually hav- ing unique problems and unique needs, as having negative attitudes toward disabled persons. Two major recommendations are made for further study in this area. It is first recommended that more repli- cations of the study be made with well defined groups so that problems of concept equivalence can be studied such as the problem was studied in the second hypothesis. Secondly, it is suggested that the assumptions underlying the ATDP scale be reconsidered. A STUDY OF THE NATURE AND DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDES OF COLLEGE COUNSELORS TOWARD PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS By Keith E. Palmerton A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1967 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am first indebted to Dr. Norman Abeles, Dr. William Farquhar, and Dr. Gregory Miller, who served as members of the advisement committee for this dissertation. Their understanding and advice has been appreciated. Dr. John E. Jordan, committee chairman, adviser, and friend, has willingly given many hours of his time. His kind and open interest in this project has been a constant source of encouragement. The final phases of this dissertation were completed at Kent State University. The support and cooperation of faculty and staff alike has facilitated the completion of this study. To them thanks are due. A special word of thanks to the "behind the scenes" workers. Mrs. Rita Burns did a skillful and efficient job of typing and editing; and Miss Susan Speer's help in programming at the Michigan State University Computor Center was of great value. Lastly, I owe a large debt to my wife, Sharyn, and to my son, Kirk, and to my daughter, Betsy. Their love and patience saw us through many trying times. ii PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators as an example of the concurrent replicative model of research. A common use of instru- mentation and theoretical material, as well as technical and analysis procedures, was both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many re- spects although the data were different in each study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS PREFACE. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. II. III. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . Statement of Purpose . . . . The Long Range Study . . . . Definition of Terms . . . Organization of the Thesis . REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Measuring Attitudes . . . . Attitude Determinants. Attitude Intensity. . Personal Contact . Amount of Information. . . Attitudes Toward Education . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY . Research Design. Instrumentation and Variables Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons. Attitudes Toward Education . . Scaling and Intensity. . . Contact with Disabled Persons General Information Inventory Instrument Changes. Demographic Variables. iv Page ii iii vii xi H OUT cm 12 15 l7 18 18 20 21 26 26 27 27 29 30~ 31 32 32 3L: Chapter Page Population and Sampling . . . . . . 34 Processing the Data . . . . . . . 36 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . 37 Descriptive . . . . . . . . . 37 MDSTAT Program . . . . . . . . 37 Analysis of Variance . . . . 37 Multiple Regression and Partial Correlation . . . . . . . . 38 Major Research Hypotheses . . . . . 38 1. Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores . . 38 2. Hypothesis Related to Attitudes Toward Education and Disabled Persons . . 39 3. Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons . . . . A0 Limitations of the Present Study . . . Al IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . AA Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . uu Differences in Mean ATPE Content, ATTE Content, ATDP Content, ATDP Intensity, and GII Scores Between Male and Female Groups . . . A7 Summary of Data in Tables 6-15. . . 53 Difference in Mean ATPE Content, ATTE Content, ATDP Content, ATDP In- tensity, and GII Scores Between Educational Degree Groups . . . 53- Summary of Data in Tables 16-25 . . 59 Zero-Order Correlations Between In- strument Scores and Selected Variables. . . . . . . . . 60 Section 2: Hypotheses Tested, Mean Differences, and Correlational Analyses . . . . . . . . . . 61 Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre- quency and Attitude Scores . . . 6l Hypotheses Related to Attitudes To- ward Education and Disabled Persons . . . . . . . . . 66 Chapter Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons . . V. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUMMARY Section 1: Discussion of Research Findings The Nature of the Sample. Hypothesis Related to Contact Fre- quency and Intensity Scores on the ATDP Scale (H- 1) . . Hypothesis Related to Contact Vari- ables and ATDP Content Scores (H- 2) . . Hypothesis Related to Attitudes To— ward Education and Disabled Persons (H— 3) . . Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Attitudes To- ward Disabled Persons (H-A). . . Section 2: Theoretical and Methodologi- cal Issues, and Recommendations . . Theoretical Issues. . Contact Amount and Attitude Intensity Contact Variables and Attitude Content . Attitudes Toward Education and Atti- tudes Toward Disabled Persons . Amount of Information and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons . . . . Methodological Issues. . Recommendations. . . . . . Section 3: Concluding Summary. REFERENCES. APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 69 71 71 72 73 75 79 81 83 83 8A 85 86 88 91 93 95 102 Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Distribution of Subjects According to Amount of Contact with Physically Disabled Persons . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Subjects According to Per- centage of Time Given to Counseling with Disabled Persons . . . . . . . Distribution of Subjects According to Sex. Distribution of Subjects According to Edu- cational Degree Earned . . . . Actual and Total Possible Range for Each Instrument . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Progres- sive Education (ATPE) Scale Comparing Males with Females . . . . Analysis of Variance of the ATPE Content Scores Comparing Male and Female Scores Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Tradi- tional Education (ATTE) Scale Comparing Males with Females . . . . Analysis of Variance of the ATTE Content Scores Comparing Male and Female Scores Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing Males with Females . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Content Scores Comparing Male and Female Scores vii Page “5 45 us U6 A7 48 A8 49 “9 50 50. Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity Scores on the Attitudes Toward Dis— abled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing Males with Females Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Intensity Scores Comparing Male and Female Scores Means and Standard Deviation of Scores on the General Information Inventory (GII) Comparing Males and Females . Analysis of Variance of the GII Scores Com— paring Male and Female Scores Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitude Toward Progressive Education (ATPE) Scale Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Hold- ing Ph. D. Degrees . . . . Analysis of Variance of ATPE Content Scores Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph.D. Degrees Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Tradi- tional Education (ATTE) Scale Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph.D. Degrees . Analysis of Variance of ATTE Content Scores Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph.D. Degrees Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Hold- ing Ph. D. Degrees . . Analysis of Variance of ATDP Content Scores Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph.D. Degrees Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Hold- ing Ph. D. Degrees . . viii Page 51. 51 52 52 SA SA, 55 55 56 56 57 Table Page 23. Analysis of Variance of ATDP Intensity Scores Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph. D. Degrees . . . . . . . . . . 57 24. Means and Standard Deviations of Scores on the General Information Inventory (GII) Test Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph. D. Degrees . . . . . . . . . 58 25. Analysis of Variance of GII Test Scores Comparing Subjects Holding M. A. Degrees with Subjects Holding Ph.D. Degrees . . . . . . . . . . . 58 26. Zero-Order Correlations Between Instru- ment Scores and Demographic and Con- tact Variables. . . . . . . . . 60 27. Zero-Order Correlations Between Selected Demographic Variables and Amount of Contact with Disabled Persons. . . . 611 28. Means and Standard Deviations of Intensity Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing High and Low Frequency of Contact with Disabled Persons . . . . . . . . 63 29. Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Intensity Scores Comparing High and Low Frequency of Contact with Disabled Persons. . . 63 30. Partial and Multiple Correlations Between Contact Variables (in Respect to Dis- abled Persons) and Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale . . . . . . . . . 65 31. Zero-Order Correlations Between Contact Variables and Content Scores on the ATDP Scale . . . . . . . . . . 65 32. Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing High Scores with Low Scores on the Atti— tudes Toward Traditional Education (ATTE) Scale . . . . . . . . . 67 ix Table Page 33. Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Content Scores Comparing High and Low ATTE Scores . . . . . . . . 67 3“. Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Dis- abled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing High Scores with Low Scores on the Attitudes Toward Progressive Edu- cation (ATPE) Scale. . . . . . . 68 35. Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Content Scores Comparing High and Low ATPE Scores . . . . . . . 68 36. Means and Standard Deviations of Content Scores on the Attitudes Toward Dis— abled Persons (ATDP) Scale Comparing High Scores with Low Scores on the GII Test . . . . . . . . . . 70 37. Analysis of Variance of the ATDP Content Scores Comparing High and Low GII Scores . . . . . . . . 70- Appendix A. B. ’IJLTIU LIST OF APPENDICES Education Scale Handicapped Persons Scale. . Personal Questionnaire. General Information Inventory Letters and Instructions Code Book xi Page 103 111 119 132 150 154 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Physically disabled persons are increasingly apply- ing for admission to American colleges and universities each year. And, gradually the colleges and universities are opening their doors to this special population. Rusalem in his book, Guiding the Physically Handicapped College Student, reports that a sampling of a few large colleges and universities suggests that the number of disabled students enrolled in such institutions runs into the tens of thousands. The personal limitations which accompany the disabilities are varied. Limitations in vision, hearing, mobility, manipulative ability, physical vigor and endurance are common (Rusalem, 1962, p. 1). There are indications that the incidence of physi- cally disabled college students will be increasing. For example, the growth of special education facilities for disabled children would suggest that more disabled chil» dren will be receiving the necessary pre—college prepar- ation. Also, recent legislation has encouraged the ex- pansion of rehabilitation services which may account for some increase in the disabled populations of colleges and universities. In addition to the above, several studies suggest that the colleges and universities have been favor- ably impressed with their experiences with disabled stu- dents and that the disabled students appear to be benefit- ing from the experience (Rusalem, 1962, p. 23). Such findings could indicate that the disabled college student population will continue to grow. The disabled student will, no doubt, find that he has many adjustments to make within the context of the university. Not only will he have some strenuous physical adjustments to make, but he may also find that, as a mem— ber of a new campus "minority group," he will have to make some difficult psychosocial adjustments. The attitudes of the student body, the faculty, and the staff toward the disabled student may well have some bearing on both the nature of his adjustment problems and the long-range bene- fits he might gain from his exposure to the university. Statement of Purpose This study is an attempt to gain some insight.into the nature and the determinants of the attitudes of one small yet perhaps significant segment of the college and university population, namely, the college counselors. Since there is some indication that disabled students, as a group, have a greater incidence of adjustment pro- blems than nondisabled students, it may be hypothesized that disabled students will use counseling help more frequently than nondisabled students (Rusalem, 1962, p. 103). This would suggest that the attitudes of college counselors toward disabled students may indeed be a significant factor influencing the attempts of a dis- abled person to adjust to and gain full benefit from campus life. To add to the scope and perspective of this study, an attempt is also made to investigate the attitudes of college counselors toward education as a social insti- tution. For the purpose of the present study, attitudes toward education are considered as independent variables. Four hypotheses, based on several theoretical con- siderations, are formulated and tested. The first hy- pothesis states that high frequency of perceived contact with disabled persons is positively related to more in- tense attitudes toward disabled persons. The second hy- pothesis states that high frequency of perceived contact with disabled persons, when combined with (a) enjoyment of the contact, (b) easy avoidance of the contact, and (c) available alternative rewarding contacts, is posi— tively related to positive attitudes toward disabled per- sons. The third hypothesis states that unfavorable atti- tudes toward traditional education and favorable attitudes toward progressive education are positively related to positive attitudes toward disabled persons. A fourth hypothesis states that high amount of information or knowledge about disabled persons is positively related to positive attitudes toward disabled persons. The Long Range Study This study of the attitudes of college counselors toward physically disabled persons is but one small por— tion of a larger, long range international study of atti- tudes toward education and toward disabled persons.1 The pilot project for the international study was conducted in 1964 in San Jose, Costa Rica. Focus of interest was on five types of questions: 1. What are the predominant attitudes within a country toward physical disability? 2. How do these attitudes vary among different groups within the population, principally in respect to sex and occupational groups? 3. Within these various groups, what correlates of attitudes toward disability can be found? A. What "kinds" of peOple work with the disabled? For example, do they have any definite charac- teristics in respect to such things as inter- personal values, orientation toward education and work, as well as differences among various demographic characteristics, in relation to people who are not so closely involved with disabled persons? 5. What methodologies can be utilized in making cross-national comparisons of the above data? (Felty, 1965) Underlying the entire international study is an interest in understanding attitudes toward education as a factor in developing, funding, and organizing 1The long range study, under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan, of the College of Education, Michigan State University, has already gathered samples from the United States, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, England, France, Holland, Japan, Peru, and Yugoslavia. educational programs. Implicit in this interest is the assumption that educational programs can be developed more effectively where there is an awareness of these attitudes and how they are formed. Both the long range study and the present study are pioneer surveys which are defined by Cattell (1966, p. 31) as multivariate-naturalistic-sequential designs. There- fore, such problems as attitude change and prediction of "overt" behavior have been omitted because they would call for both a longitudinal study and the use of measur- ing devices which are beyond the scope of this study. Definition of Terms The following terms have either a specialized mean- ing or are in need of an operational definition as used in this study. Attitude.--This general term is used as defined by Guttman (1950, p. 51) to refer to a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something (author's italics). 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." The variety of acts that a person can perform can include a wide range of behaviors extending from cognitive to verbal to physi- cal acts. Guttman has considered the totality of behavior toward a social object as a universe which he has attempted to divide into subuniverses. This he has accomplished in the following manner: I. Stereotype: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (excels-~does not excel) in comparison with Negroes on (desirable traits). II. Norm: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (ought--ought not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). III. Hypothetical Interaction: Belief of (a white subject) that he himself (will-~will not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). IV. Personal Interaction: Overt action of (a white subject) himself (to—-not to) interact with Negroes in (social ways)(Guttman, 1959, p. 319). These definitions could be made relevant for this present study by simply substituting a nondisabled person for "a white subject" and "disabled persons" for "Negroes." The nature of the instruments used in this study largely confines the type of behavior being studied to subuni- verse I—-Stereotype, as defined above. Attitude Component.-—The definitions of the attitude components as used in this study are the same definitions Felty used in his cross-cultural study. Components of attitudes have been discussed by various investigators (e.g., Katz, 1960, p. 168; Rosenberg, 1960, pp. 320, ff; Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9). The two components typically con- sidered are those of belief and intensity, although Guttman defines additional components according to certain mathe- matical properties. In this study, the first component is that of item content (or belief), 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 com- ponent refers to the affective statements that a re- spondent makes regarding each content item; Operationally, it consists of a separate statement for each attitude item on which the respondent may indicate how strongly or how certain he feels about his answer to the content state- ment. Attitude Scale.--As used in this study, a scale is a set of items which fall into a particular relationship in respect to each other and in respect to the ordering of respondents. A set of items can be said to form a scale if each person's responses to each item can be re- produced from the knowledge of his total score on the test within reasonable limits of error (e.g., Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3; Stouffer, 1950, Ch. 1). College Counselor.—-The population studied is com- posed of individuals of both sexes who have as one of their vocational responsibilities the counseling of students en— rolled in four-year colleges or universities. The counsel- ing responsibilities are not only in the area of academic advisement, but encompass educational, vocational, and personal—social counseling. The counselors for this study have been chosen on the basis that they are, or have been until recently, counseling students in a col- lege or university with a student population of 15,000 or more . Demographic Variables.—-In the present study this refers to certain statistical data frequently used in sociological studies. These variables are age, sex, academic degree earned, staff position with the coun— seling center, percentage of time given to counseling disabled and nondisabled students, and number of chil- dren. Educational Progressivism and Traditionalism.-—These two concepts are measured and thus defined by Kerlinger's Attitudes Toward Education Scale (1958). Kerlinger‘s model is built on a dichotomization (but not polarization) of attitudes toward education into traditional and pro- gressive attitudes. He holds that traditional and pro- gressive attitudes represent two relatively independent underlying factors or ideologies. Traditionalism affirms a stand which emphasizes a conservative and restrictive attitude toward education. Progressivism emphasizes a permissive, open, problem solving attitude toward edu- cation. Handicap.--This term signifies the social disad— vantage placed upon a physically impaired person by virtue of the impairment. A handicap is a consequence of cul- turally 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 social connotations. Institutional Satisfaction.--This term is used to describe a set of variables on which the respondents are asked to indicate how well they feel that various kinds of local institutions are doing their job in the com- munity. These institutions are schools, business, labor, government, health services, and churches. Physically Disabled or Handicapped Persons.-- "Disability" is used in this study as a functional term denoting some loss of the tool function of the body. This can be clearly distinguished from the above defi- nition of handicap where a social disadvantage is in- flicted as a result of the disability. However, in the inStruments the term "handicap," is often used as a common term referring to both disability and handicap. This is done because it is felt that "handicap" is a more familiar term and that it would cause less confusion. These terms refer to persons with any of the follow- ing disabilities: 1. Blind persons who have no useful sight at all. 2. Partly blind persons who have some sight but have trouble reading and getting about even with glasses. 3. Deaf persons who have no useful hearing at all. A. Partly deaf persons who have some hearing but have trouble understanding other persons even with a hearing aid. 10 5. Cripples or amputees who have arms or legs that have been paralyzed or removed even though they may be of some use with artificial hands or legs. 6. Spastic (or cerebral palsy) who have poor con- trol and coordination of their leg, arm, and head movements. Movements are often jerky and speech hard to understand. 7. Disfigured persons who have been obviously damaged about the face, such as with burns or scars, so that the face has been changed. 8. Persons who experience severe loss of physical vigor and endurance. Rehabilitation.--This term signifies "restoration of the disabled to the fullest physical, mental, social, and vocational usefulness possible" (Jordan, 1964a). Religiosity.—-This is a term used to denote orien- tation to religion. Operationally, it is defined by two items: first, the importance of religion; second, the extent to which the rules and regulations of the church are followed. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized according to the following plan. Chapter I serves as an introduction to the nature of the problem involved in this study. 11 Chapter II is a summary of the theory and research related to this study. The areas of concern are: 1. Attitudes toward disabled persons 2. Measuring attitudes 3. Attitude determinants A. Personal contact with disabled persons 5. Amount of information about disabled persons 6. Attitudes toward education Chapter III is concerned with the procedures and methodology of the study. The instrumentation of the study and the statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data are included in this chapter. The major re- search hypotheses are also listed. Chapter IV presents the research results in tabular and explanatory form. Chapter V contains a summary of the results with conclusions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH Societal reaction to visible physical disability existed, no doubt, long before recorded history. Studies of the history of rehabilitation and disability indicate that reactions to disability ranged from positive in some societies to extremely negative in other societies (Jaques, 1960; McGowan, 1960). Some societies found the disabled to be an unbearable economic burden and thus felt obliged to eliminate them. Other societies, having found "sharing" a useful means of survival, respected and cared for the physically disabled person. Still other societies treated disabled persons as sacred and agents of the gods (Jaques, 1960; McGowan, 1960). Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Jaques (1960) suggests that the advent of Christian- ity saw the first attempt to care for the disabled person as an individual human being of inherent worth. Even though practices of destroying disabled persons are mostly nonexistent in current societies, negative reactions to disability still exist and are manifested at behavioral, verbal, and attitudinal levels. 12 l3 Auvenshine (1962), in his study of attitudes toward disability, notes that, "it is as important for rehabili- tation workers, teachers, and student personnel workers to understand the psychosocial atmosphere in which a dis- abled person operates as it is to know the physical limitations of the student" (p. 5). With this and simi- lar motives in mind, a number of scholars have attempted to study attitudes toward physically disabled persons. Several authorities have noted an interesting re- lationship between having a physical disability and having membership in an ethnic minority group. Chesler's study (1965), for example, concludes that, ". . . the physically disabled can be conceptualized as a minority group subject to many of the same attitudinal and behavioral predispo- sitions as are ethnic minorities" (p. 881). Also, much of what Wright (1960) said about the underprivileged status of the disabled person and the inclusion of disabled per— sons in stereotyped groups suggests that the disabled are, in fact, members of their own minority group. Barker, too, (19A8) saw disabled persons as members of "an underprivi- leged minority." And Handel (1960) observed that investi- gating physical disability and its resulting nuances is like investigating a problem of race. Relative to the disabled person's social acceptability, Hamilton (1950) stated, . we set our own standard of what we consider normal and acceptable. The deviate is automatically, to some degree, repulsive to us. He, too, becomes a member of a minority group (p. 32). IA There is, then, some agreement among the authorities that the person with a disability suffers not only the dis- advantages associated with his physical disability, but he also suffers the loss of many privileges that accompany first-class citizenship. Added to this, at least in Western socieites, is the dehumanizing plight of being thought of as first a member of a group and only secondly as a person. Several studies suggest that behavioral and per- sonality disturbances in disabled persons are more often a product of family attitudes than a product of the nature or extent of disability (Allen and Pearson, 1928; Coughlin, 1991). Another study reports that attitudes toward disabled persons are in generalndldly'favorable (Mussen and Barker, 19AM). Yuker, Block and Campbell (1960), authors of the ATDP scale used in the present study, further conclude that favorable attitudes are significantly related to personal- data, psychological, and work-performance variables. They found that persons with favorable attitudes (as measured by the ATDP scale) were characterized by low anxiety, high verbal intelligence, and a high degree of job satisfaction. Auvenshine (1962) concluded from his study that females have more favorable attitudes toward disabled persons than do males. 15 A group of prominent scholars notes that: It is possible to point out several rather definite tendencies in data on attitudes toward physically disabled persons. 1. Public, verbalized attitudes toward disabled persons are on the average mildly favorable; an appreciable minority openly express nega- tive attitudes. 2. Indirect evidence suggests that deeper unver- balized attitudes are more frequently hostile. This point requires further investigation. 3. The evidence is rather clear that the attitudes of parents toward their disabled children tend to be extreme more often than toward normal children, centering about the following pat- terns: oversolicitude, rejection, pressing for accomplishments beyond the child's abil- ities, inconsistent attitudes. Overprotection appears to occur more frequently than overt rejection. A. The speculation has been advanced that some favorable attitudes and some oversolicitousness on the part of parents mask deep, inadmissible hostile attitudes. 5. The attitudes of disabled persons toward their own disabilities have been inadequately studied. The available evidence suggests that these attitudes (a) vary widely, (b) have little re- lation to the degree of disability, (c) are re- lated to personality characteristics. 6. The attitudes of disabled persons and of their physically normal associates are frequently in conflict with respect to the meaning of help, curiosity, sympathy, and misfortune. 7. The attitudes of both the disabled person and his associates are influenced by the larger social situation in which interactions occur (Barker, Wright, Meyerson and Gonick, 1953, pp. 8A, 85). Measuring Attitudes Guttman (1950) has defined an attitude as a "de- limited totality of behavior with respect to something" (p. 51). Thus, a subject's written response to an atti- tude scale can be one form of delimited behavior. Accord- ing to Guttman (1959), however, the "attitude universe" 16 may consist of many forms of behavior which are more or less intercorrelated and which form separate subuniverses. If the attitude universe is to be adequately represented in the sample, it would follow that each of the possible subuniverses should be represented in the sample. Such inclusive sampling is beyond the scope of this study and thus the inferences one may make regarding any behavior other than "written reSponses" is limited. There may be a relationship between the statements one makes about a person with a disability, and how one behaves overtly to— ward that person, but the relationship cannot be assumed without empirical support. Vinacke (1952) further defines the problems in atti- tude measurement by noting three major problems: (a) attitudes are inferred; they can never be observed directly; (b) attitudes are not composed of definite units and, if they were, the equality of the units would be questionable; (c) it is extremely difficult to make attitude tests valid and reliable (pp. 323—325). Vinacke reports that Thurston coped with the first problem in the following manner: Let us use opinions (the response) as an index and for whatever it is worth. Assume that measurements are obtained only in situations where there is a reasonable expectation that subjects will tell the truth and hence provide a dependable basis for our inference (Thurston, 1928). 17 In an attempt to find a partial solution for the lack of definite and equal units in attitude measurement, Vinacke (p. 32A) turns to McNemar: If A scores A, B--6, and C-—8, you can't say that C possesses twice as much of the attitude as A. You can say that B's value differs from that of C in the same direction that A's value differs from B's (McNemar, 19A6). "In this way, individuals can be ranked in terms of their responses, thus providing a basis for some kind of quanti— tative treatment" (Vinacke, 1952, pp. 323-32A). Attitude Determinants One of the main purposes of this study was to attempt to define some of the determinants of the attitudes de- scribed above. Stereotyped attitudes may be accounted for in part by the personality make-up of those holding the attitudes. This study, however, was concerned with several other theoretical attitude determinants. It was hypothe- sized that the amount and nature of personal contact with the "minority" group may be a determinant of attitudes. It was further hypothesized that the amount of knowledge or information about physically disabled persons and their needs may be an attitude determinant. Also, it was hy- pothesized that positive attitudes toward progressive education may correlate with favorable attitudes toward disabled persons. 18 Attitude Intensity The measure of attitude intensity was considered to be important for several reasons. First, Rosenberg (1960, p. 336) has proposed that the intensity component of an attitude may be considered as an action predictor. Also, Carlson (1965, p. 259) has found that initial intense attitudes are more resistant to change than moderately held attitudes. Guttman and Goa (1951) have shown, in addition, that intensity may be related to the amount of social contact with the attitude object. Felty (196A) further notes that research has also suggested that in- tensity may be an important component of internal attitude structure, determining the "zero point" of a scale that discriminates the psychologically "true" positive from nega— tive attitude direction. For the purposes of this study, intensity will be considered an important attitude component which may in- crease predictability. Personal Contact Homans (1950, p. 112) has suggested that the more frequent the contact between persons or groups, the more favorable or unfavorable their attitudes toward each other may be. That is, personal contact appears to be related to attitude intensity. Allport (1958, pp. 250—268) has concluded from his study of inter-group contact that "equal status contact" creates more favorable attitudes 19 when the contact is in pursuit of common goals. Allport has further noted that casual intergroup contact is generally unpredictable in its effects, but casual con- tact may serve to reinforce adverse stereotypes. The status of the persons contacted within a given group was also found to be a significant factor. Allport found in his studies of attitudes toward Negroes that those having contact with high status or high occupational group Negroes held more favorable attitudes than those having contact with lower status Negroes. Jacobson a£_a1. (1960, pp. 210-213) add to Allport's findings by noting that equal status contacts are more likely to result in unfavorable attitudes if the basis of the status equality is uncertain, i.e., if one group does not fully accept the equality of status. Zetterberg (1963) names two other independent vari- ables which appear to shape attitudes. He describes the variables as being "cost of avoiding interaction, and availability of alternative rewards" (p. 13). He explains, "if the cost of avoiding interaction is low, and if there are available alternative sources of reward, the more frequent the interaction, the greater the mutual liking" (p. 13). Felty (1965) summarized the foregoing as follows: "frequent contact with a person or group is likely to lead to more favorable attitudes if: 1. the contact is between status equals in pur- suit of common goals (Allport, 1958, p. 267), 2O 2. the contact is perceived as instrumental to the realization of a desired goal value (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 521), 3. contact is with members of a higher status group (Allport, 1958, pp. 25A, 261-262), A. the contact is among status equals and the basis of status is unquestioned (Jacobsen et a1. 1960, pp. 210-213), 5. the contact is volitional (as reinterpreted from Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13), 6. the contact is selected over other rewards (as reinterpreted from Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13). The Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C) was adminis- tered in an attempt to measure amount and type of personal contact. Amount of Information Haring g£_a1. (1958), in their study, hypothesized that one determinant of attitudes toward the handicapped may be, ". . . a more accurate and realistic knowledge and understanding of handicapped children including their educational, physical, emotional and social needs" (p. 6). Their study revealed, however, that "in- creased knowledge per se was not found to be a significant factor in effecting modifications of teachers' attitudes toward exceptional children" (p. 130). The investigators found that a workshop designed to modify attitudes of teachers toward exceptional children was effective when teachers had "classroom experiences with exceptional children concurrent with a workshop. . . ." It was then concluded that increased knowledge or information is likely to modify attitudes only when (a) the infor- mation presented to the subject is designed to bring 21 about a change in attitudes, and (b) the subject has one- to-one experiences with the attitude object group con- current with the presentation of the information. Nelson (1939), in an earlier report, summarized the literature on attitudes and claimed that the studies re- viewed were in fair agreement that, "Information seems to reduce prejudice and increase tolerance toward other races and toward such issues as the amount of freedom to be allowed children" (p. A25). Attitudes Toward Education In the present study "attitudes toward education" was considered an independent rather than a dependent variable (such as it was in Felty's study). However, Kerlinger's theoretical model, which was used in Felty's (1965) study, will still be used in the present study. Kerlinger's model is built on a dichotomization (but not polarization) of attitudes toward education into tradi— tional and progressive attitudes. He holds that traditional and progressive attitudes represent two relatively inde— pendent underlying factors or ideologies. Friesen (1966, pp. 18-22), in his study of attitudes toward the physically disabled, has a most helpful section on this subject. Friesen notes that traditionalism is not just the oppo- site of progressivism in education. Traditionalism seems to have an existence of its own. Rather than conceiving of traditionalism as simply the negation of progressivism, 22 it might better be conceived as the affirmative of a stand which emphasizes a conservative—traditional approach to educational issues and problems. Progressivism also seems to be a stand in its own right. When we say a man is an "educational progressivist" we do not simply mean that he is an anti-traditionalist. While this may be true, it is more important to suggest that progressivism is an inde- pendent stand in its own right (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 330). Kerlinger defines the traditional factor as a con- servative and restrictive attitude which emphasizes sub- ject matter for its own sake. He also notes that the hierarchical nature of impersonal superior—inferior re- lationships is considered important. There is an emphasis on external discipline, and social beliefs are preserved through the maintenance of the status quo. In contrast, the permissive-progressive factor emphasizes problem solving and de-emphasizes subject matter par a3. From this perspective, education is seen as growth and the child's interest and needs are seen as basic to education. Equality and warmth in interpersonal relation- ships are valued. There is an orientation to internal rather than external discipline. Social beliefs tend to be liberal and emphasize education as an instrument of change (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 112). Kerlinger's theory can be summarized in the follow- ing four propositions: 23 Individuals having the same or similar occu- pational or professional roles will hold similar attitudes toward a cognitive object which is significantly related to the occupational or professional role. Individuals having dis- similar roles will hold dissimilar attitudes. 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. Individuals will differ in degree or strength of dichotomization, the degree or strength of dichotomization being a function of occu- pational role, extent of knowledge of the cognitive object (education), the importance of the cognitive object to the subjects, and their experience with it. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of education, but individuals will tend to attach differential weights to different areas, specifically to the areas of (a) teaching- subject matter--curricu1um, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) normative, and (d) authority- discipline (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 290). As a result of the implications of these obser- vations, Kerlinger designed a study which examined the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. The sample consisted of 25 subjects chosen on the basis of occupational roles as well as known attitudes toward edu- cation. He developed the following categories for the study: ATTITUDES: (l) (2) Restrictive—traditional (dependence-heteronomy) Permissive-progressive (independence—autonomy) 2A AREAS: (a) Teaching-Subject Matter Curriculum (b) Interpersonal Relations (k) Normative-Social (conventionalism-noncon- ventionalism) (m) Authority—Discipline An example of 1(a) would be: The true view of edu- cation is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. An illustration of 2(a) would be exemplified in the following statement: Knowledge and subject matter themselves are not so important as learning to solve problems. An illustration of 1(m) might be: One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interest of the children. An. example of 2(m) might be: True discipline springs from interests, motivation, and involvement in live problems. Kerlinger summarizes the traditional-progressive issue as follows: A basic dichotomy seems to exist in educational attitudes corresponding generally to restrictive and permissive, or traditional and progressive ways of regarding education, and some individuals show the dichotomy more sharply than others de- pending on their occupational roles, their knowl- edge of and experiences with education, and the importance of education to them (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). In a recent study, Kerlinger (1967) constructed a A6—item scale, administered it to a total of 130A subjects and exposed the resulting raw data to factor analysis. 25 He discovered that the "traditional" and "progressive" concepts are multidimensional. However, a second-order factor analysis proved to Kerlinger's satisfaction that he had empirical evidence supporting the appropriateness of reducing a "multifaceted attitude domain to two basic factors," e.g., traditionalism and progressivism (Ker- linger, 1967, p. 203). CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This study is an attempt to investigate the nature and determinants of attitudes toward physically disabled persons. The universe of subjects is composed of college counselors who are working in colleges with student popu- lations of 15,000 or more. One of the implications of a study such as this is that the attitudes of the college counselors toward the disabled will have some bearing on the nature of the adjustments that disabled college stu- dents will be able to achieve. However, the present study is limited to an investigation of the nature and determinants of attitudes and will not be directly con- cerned with the adjustment problems of disabled students. Research Design It was hypothesized that the amount and nature of contact with disabled persons, amount of information about disabled persons, and attitudes toward education are atti- tude determinants. It was further hypothesized that posi- tive attitudes toward disabled students are positively correlated with (a) a high number of contacts with dis- abled persons that were enjoyed, easily avoided, and 26 27 (if remuneration was received) easily replaced with other rewarding alternatives; (b) a progressive attitude toward education; and (c) a high amount of information about dis- abled persons. Certain demographic factors, such as sex and educational degree, were also considered as possible determinants of attitudes. Instrumentation and Variables The criterion measure was the Attitudes Toward Dis- abled Persons Scale (ATDP) as developed by Yuker EE_él- (1960). Attitudes toward education were measured by Kerlinger's Attitudes Toward Education Scale (ATE) (Ker- linger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959). The General Information Inventory (GII) developed by Haring g£_a1. (1958) was revised and used as a measure of amount of information. The amount of and nature of personal con- tact, as well as certain demographic data, was identified by certain items in the personal questionnaire. Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons This criterion measure was developed by Yuker g£_a1. (1966) in an attempt to meet the need for an objective and reliable instrument to measure attitudes toward disabled persons as a group. This scale measured the extent to which the dis- abled person was perceived to be different from the physically normal person. Wright (1960) suggests that, 28 with respect to disabled persons, this is the crucial attitudinal dimension; to be seen as different or set apart signified rejection. Each ATDP Scale statement (Appendix B) tests whether the respondent sees disabled persons to be the same as, or different from, non-dis- abled persons in personality or in need of special social relationships. The scale was scored such that a low score indicates that the respondent perceives disabled persons as being quite similar to non-disabled persons. A high score indicates that the respondent perceives dis- abled persons as being "different" from non-disabled persons. It may also be noted that . . . the majority of items on the ATDP suggest that where there is a difference perceived, this difference has negative connotations. Therefore, one may wish to extend the interpretation to sug- gest that a high score not only reflects the fact that the respondent perceives disabled persons as different but also to some degree "inferior" or "disadvantaged" (Yuker et al., 1966, p. 31). Several well known measures of reliability were used to test the reliability of the ATDP scale. The immediate parallel measure of equivalence form, the test-retest measure of stability and the delayed parallel measure of stability-equivalence were all used, leading to the con- clusion that "there is reasonably good evidence that the ATDP is a reliable scale" as compared with "attitude scales of comparable length and format" (Yuker et a1., 1966, p. 3A). For example, a study by the author of this scale shows test-retest reliability coefficients 29 ranging from .66 with a five-week interval between tests to .89 with a two—week interval between tests (Yuker g£_a1., 1966, p. 120). In an attempt to establish its validity, the ATDP scale was compared with other general measures of atti- tudes toward the disabled and other measures of attitudes toward disadvantaged or disabled groups. The relation- ship between the ATDP and these other scales appears to be substantial. The data also . . suggest that acceptance of the physically dis- abled is positively related to acceptance of people who are different from the respondent, including such groups as the mentally ill, the aged, and a variety of ethnic groups (Yuker et a1. , 1966, p. 81) Attitudes Toward Education Kerlinger's Attitudes Toward Education Scale (ATE, Appendix A) (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959) was included for three reasons: first, because in a study so closely interwoven with educational concerns, the results are valuable in their own right; second, be— cause there is a rationale for hypothesizing a positive relationship between progressive attitudes toward edu- cation and attitudes toward physical disability; and third, because it is short and simple to administer. The scales represent a factor analysis of a set of A0 items given to 598 subjects of varying backgrounds, but all apparently of above—average education. The scales have been found 30 to be adequate under cross-validation; however, there is no indication that persons of lower educational attainment have been adequately represented in the studies. The original intention was to submit the items of the three scales used in this study to Guttman scaling procedures, but two previous studies (Felty, 1965; Friesen, 1966) re- vealed that the scales do not form unidimensional scales as defined by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program (Lingoes, 1963). The present study does not attempt a third replication of the Multiple Scalogram Analysis. A study by the author of this scale reveals test- retest reliability coefficients ranging from .70 to .76 (Kerlinger, 1960, p. 12). Scaling and Intensity Various approaches have been adapted to obtain comparability of attitudinal data. Guttman (195A) has considered principal components of attitudes. The first principal component should provide a rank ordering of both people and questions so that knowledge of a person's rank predicts responses to the questions with reasonable confidence. The component requires obtaining a measure of intensity for each attitude question asked in addition to the measure of approval or agreement with the attitude content. Measures of intensity, when plotted against con- tent, have been found to determine a point of "indiffer- ence" between positive and negative responses which is psychologically equivalent from one group to another. 31 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 ques- tion is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly," and "Not so strongly." Re- peating such a question after each content ques- tion 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, 1950, p. 219). Contact with Disabled Persons The "Personal Questionnaire" (Appendix C) was de— signed to Operationalize variables involved in personal contact between respondents and physically disabled per- sons. Items included are conceptually distinct. Item 83 reports the kinds of relationship experienced; item 8A, the frequency of contact; item 85, the ease with which the contact might have been avoided; items 86 and 87, the extent to which the respondent gained_personally by the contact; item 88, the amount of enjoyment experi— enced in the contact; and item 89, the availability of alternatives. Though reliability data are unstable for such "single item scales" in any context, the pilot study (Felty, 1965) affords evidence of item validity in that workers in rehabilitation and special education re- sponded to comparable items in patterns known to be accurate. 32 General Information Inventopy The General Information Inventory (GII, Appendix D) was developed by Haring a£_al. (1958) in an attempt to test the relationship between knowledge of disabled chil— dren and attitudes toward disabled children. For the present study, the G11 was altered considerably, thus rendering any previous reliability or validity studies meaningless. A Kuder Richardson #20 reliability check on the items used in the present study revealed a coefficient of .67. As previously stated, the inventory was altered in two ways: (a) some items were omitted so that the in- ventory would test only knowledge of physical disabilities; (b) the wording of several items was altered to allow the items to refer to handicapped persons in general rather than to refer only to disabled children. The GII, as developed by Haring g§_a1., originally contained 100 items. The number of items was subsequently reduced to A9 items. Instrument Changes Two of the instruments employed in the present study were essentially the same as those being used in the inter- national study. Both the ATDP scale and the ATE scale were used intact with only slight changes in the format. No item was changed and the order of the items was not altered. However, in this study all items (both content and intensity items) for both scales were numbered sequentially while in the international study only the 33 content items were numbered and each scale was numbered separately. This change was made so that each item re- sponse could be indicated on a five choice, 1230 mark sense answer sheet. The answer sheets were employed to reduce the mailing costs and to facilitate scoring and card punching procedures (see section on presentation of instruments). The Personal Questionnaire: HP and the Personal Questionnaire used in the international study were com- bined to form one questionnaire and were altered con- siderably. The alterations were made to serve two pur- poses. First, the questionnaire was altered to render it appropriate for use with a more homogeneous population of professional college counselors. The original question- nares were constructed to be appropriate for a hetero- geneous cross section of society. Secondly, the question- naire was altered in such a way as to render it usable with the five choice, mark sense answer sheets. For example, several items had to be collapsed from nine to five alternative responses because the answer sheet offered only five choices. The Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values was omitted because it was felt that the "test-sophisticated" popu- 1ation of college counselors would not respond favorably or validly to such a measuring device. In-its place an altered form of Haring, Stern and Cruickshank's General 3A Information Inventory (GII) was used. The GII, originally constructed for a heterogeneous population of educators, was altered in such a way as to make it useful with a more homogeneous population of college counselors. In several instances a reference to handicapped children was changed to refer to handicapped persons. Also, all terms which were concerned with mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed were omitted. Demographic Variables The personal questionnaire (Appendix C) offered the respondents the opportunity to place themselves in an appropriate category on several variables. The variables of interest were sex (item 90), age (91), marital status (92), number of children (93), professional degree (107), professional duties (108), time given to counseling (109), time given to counseling the handicapped (110), and staff membership in the rehabilitation counselor training pro- gram (lll). Due to time and space limitations, all of these variables will not be used in the present study. However, some of the unused variables may be used as part of the larger intended study.l Population and Sampling The pOpulation universe for this study included all college counselors (see definitions, pp. 6, 7 above) in the continental United States who work in colleges or lSee pp. 3 and A of the present study. 35 universities with a student population of 15,000 or more and who were listed as college counselors in either the American Psychological Association 1966 Directory, or the American Personnel and Guidance Association 1965-66 Directory of Members or in the most recent catalogues of schools with student pOpulations of 15,000 or more. It was ascertained that there were 57 colleges and uni- versities with student pOpulations of the appropriate size. The above mentioned sources listed 361 college counselors. From this number, 130 counselors were selected at random using a random number table as the randomizing agent. The questionnaires were then mailed to the 130 counselors. The original plan was to use various follow-up procedures until 80% or 100% of the subjects returned their responses to the questionnaire. However, it soon became evident that the address and job listings in the above mentioned sources were often out-of—date and inappropriate. As a result, many of the questionnaire packets were returned marked "unknown" or "no forwarding address." Thirty more question- naires were immediately mailed to randomly selected counselors to replace those counselors who never received a questionnaire. Many of these packets were also returned as "unknown." One month after the initial mailing, follow- up letters were mailed (see Appendix E) to the subjects who had not responded at all. A return post card was included in this mailing giving the subjects an opportunity 36 to refuse to respond or to note that they were not appro- priate subjects for the sample. Again the sources proved inaccurate for many subjects replied that they were not appropriate subjects. Two weeks after the follow-up letters were mailed the remaining non-responses were phoned to encourage them to reply. Here again, a number of the non-responses were unknown at the universities at which they had been listed as being counselors. The final result was that 108 college counselors received the questionnaire. No more replacements were mailed due to prohibitive costs and time limitations. Nineteen of the 108 subjects refused to respond and eight subjects indicated they would respond but did not do so. Eighty-one usable responses were received. Thus a 75% return was achieved rather than the originally planned 80% return. Processing the Data As has been previously mentioned, the subjects were asked to indicate their responses to the questionnaire on a five-choice, 1230 mark sense answer sheet. The item responses were precoded in such a way that the responses could be punched by machine directly from the answer sheets to IBM cards. Thus the chance of error was sub- stantially reduced as card punching, scoring, and coding of data by hand were eliminated. 37' Statistical Analysis Descriptive Frequency distributions for every item were compiled by two frequency column count programs designated as FCC I and FCC 11 (Clark, 196A). The frequency distributions were then used as a basis for dichotomizing variables for analy- sis and as a means of establishing "clinical contact" with the data. MDSTAT Program This program was specially designed for missing data which yields correlation coefficients, means, and standard deviations. The CDC 3600 MDSTAT program developed by Ruble and Rafter (1966) is both flexible and broad in its possible usage. All basic variables in the present study were processed by this program. Analysis of Variance A one—way analysis of variance was used on the vari- ables related to the major research hypotheses. The UNEQI routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate these statistics. An additional one-way analysis of variance was run on two of the variables (sex and educational degree) thought to be determinants of scale and test score differences. 38 Multiple Regression and Partial Correlation 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). The variables involved in hypothesis 2 were pro- cessed by this program. Major Research Hypotheses l. Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores Contact--Intensity Interactions 5:1: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the attitude-toward-disabled-persons (ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Hypothesis Derivation.--This hypothesis was an attempt to operationalize considerations of Rosenberg (1960), Foa, (1950), and Guttman and Foa (1951), to the effect that con- tact frequency is directly related to attitude intensity, regardless of content directions. Instrumentation.--Contact frequency was measured by a direct question, number 8A, of the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C); ATDP intensity scores were obtained through independent intensity questions following each attitude content statement (Appendix B). 39 Contact-—Frequency Interactions H-2: High frequency of contact with disabled persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is con- current with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact. Hypothesis Derivation.--This hypothesis was derived from considerations of Homans (1950), Zetterberg (1963), and various studies in special education. Instrumentation.--Attitudes toward disabled persons were mentioned by a 20-statement attitude instrument developed by Yuker g§_a1. (1960) and modified for the pur— poses of the present study (Appendix B). The contact vari— able was measured by direct questions in the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix C): frequency by question number 8A, alternatives by question number 89, enjoyment by number 88, and avoidance by number 85. 2. Hypothesis Related to Attitudes Toward Education and Disabled Persons H13: Persons who score high in traditional and low in progressive attitudes toward education will also tend to score low on favorable attitudes toward disabled per- sons. Hypothesis Derivation.--This hypothesis was built on the assumption that persons who score low on "progres- sive" and high on "traditional" attitudes toward education A0 are persons who tend to want to maintain the status quo and are persons who tend to value social structure above persons. Thus they also tend to evaluate persons in terms of what they do to help maintain the social structure. The disabled person, therefore, who may not be able to play a known role in maintaining the social structure may be devalued (Wright, 1960). Instrumentation.--Attitudes toward education were measured by a 20-statement attitude instrument developed by Kerlinger (1959) and modified for the purpose of the larger international study. Also used was the ATDP atti- tude instrument (see H-2). 3. Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons H-A: Persons who score high on the General Infor— mation Inventory (GII) test of knowledge will tend to score high in favorable attitudes toward disabled persons. Hypothesis Derivation.-—This hypothesis was proposed by Haring g£_a1. (1958) in their study of attitudes toward exceptional children (Appendix D). The assumption under- lying this hypothesis was that lack of information or misinformation is one factor that allows unfavorable attitudes to develop and/or exist. Instrumentation.--The General Information Inventory (Appendix D) tested the knowledge variable. The ATDP scale (Appendix B) tested the attitudes of college counselors. A1 Limitations of the Present Study Several of the limitations of this study appear to be related to the somewhat bulky size of the collected instru- ments to which the subjects were asked to respond. Re- spondents reported that the amount of time needed to com- plete the instrument series ranged from A5 mintues to two hours. Thus, because of personal time limitations and as a result of negative feelings engendered by the 169-item instrument, some subjects chose not to respond. The some- what inadequate return brings into question the repre- sentativeness of the cooperating subjects in the sample. However, some comparative demographic data was gathered by phone on 11 of the 27 non-respondents and it appears that the non-respondents are not different from the respondents in terms of sex, marital status, age, educational degree, professional duties, and amount of time given to counseling handicapped persons. Felty (1965) has noted that all the items, both on the ATDP scale and the ATTE scale, were not scalable for the particular sample that he selected. For the ATDP scale, the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program for the CDC 3600 computer found one seven-item and one three-item scale (Felty, 1965, pp. 87, 88). For the ATTE scale, one six-item scale was discovered. It was felt, however, that both scales should be used in their original entirety since the population to be tested is quite different than A2 the population in Felty's study. Also, for the sake of research and scale development, the items should be ex- posed to a relatively homogeneous population such as the population of college counselors. As a result of extensive alterations, the General Information Inventory (Haring g£_al., 1958) was rendered in essence a new instrument. Therefore, all previous reliability and validity measures on the G11 are rendered useless. An item analysis (F0 303 Item Analysis, Michigan State University Evaluation Services) of the G11 reveals a mean item difficulty of .32.1 This suggests that the test was somewhat too easy for the sophisticated sample of college counselors. To determine each item's index of discrimination, the percentage of correct responses made by the highest scoring 27% of the sample was compared with the percentage of correct responses made by the lowest scoring 27% of the sample. The mean item difficulty, which was the difference between the percentage right in the upper group and the percentage right in the lower group, was .2A. The Kuder Richardson reliability #20 was found to be .672. A final limitation of the study may be attributed to the type of scales employed to measure attitudes toward 1This indicates that, on the average, 32% of the sample missed each item and 68% answered each item cor- rectly. A3 education and disabled persons. Written responses from several subjects indicated that a negative response was engendered in the subjects by what Guttman (1959) defines as stereotypical and normative type scales. It appears that this particular group of subjects might respond more readily to scales structured on the hypothetical inter- action level (see Chapter I, p. 5). It could be reasoned that college counselors are more accustomed to functioning on the hypothetical interaction level, i.e., college counselors may feel uncomfortable in responding to a scale that attempts to compare their "group" with another "group," but they may feel quite comfortable in responding to a scale that attempts to measure how they will or will not interact with given social objects. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter is organized into two main sections: (a) descriptive data on designated characteristics of the sample; and (b) the testing of the hypotheses presented at the end of Chapter III. This includes comparisons of mean differences of the various scores of the respondents as well as zero-order, partial, and multiple correlations for selected variables. Section 1: Descriptive Data The descriptive characteristics of the research sample are presented in this section. The data to be used were derived from a combination of the FCC I and the FCC 11 programs (see p. 38), the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program which provides a number of statistics (see p. 39) useful for simple demographic description, the CDC 3600 UNEQI pro- gram (see p. 38) which yields one-way analysis of variance, and the CDC 3600 Least Squares program (see p. 39) which yields multiple and partial regression coefficients. In Table 1 a breakdown of the amount of contact the counselors had with physically disabled persons was pre- sented. AA “5 TABLE 1.--Distribution of subjects according to amount of contact with physically disabled persons. Number of Contacts 0'9 10-A9 50’99 1004‘99 500 or more Number of Subjects 12 27 11 10 21 The data in Table 1 indicate that the amount of contact was spread over the full range of possibilities presented. The data in Table 2, in which the amount of time given to counseling with disabled persons was presented, do not indicate such an even distribution. Only 1A coun- selors have given any appreciable amount of time to counsel- ing disabled persons. TABLE 2.-—Distribution of subjects according to percentage of time given to counseling with disabled persons. % of Time Counseling No Little or Disabled Response None 10'25 25‘50 50‘75 75'100 Persons Number of Subjects 1 66 13 0 O 1 In Table 3 the distribution of subjects according to sex was presented, and in Table A the distribution of sub— jects according to educational degree was presented. Both variables have enough subjects in each category to permit A6 comparisons on the basis of sex difference and educational degree difference. TABLE 3.--Distribution of subjects according to sex. Sex Male Female Number of Subjects 55 26 TABLE A.--Distribution of subjects according to educational degree earned. Degree M. A. or Better Ph.D. Number of Subjects 22 59 As a group, the respondents were relatively homo- geneous, i.e., all had M. A. degrees or better, few had any extensive experience in counseling with disabled per- sons, 98% of the group was between the ages of 20 and 60, and all respondents worked in a large college or university as a counselor to students. However, the ranges of the various scale scores were not unlike those of the hetero- geneous groups tested in previous attitudinal studies (Felty, 1965; Friesen, 1966). Presented in Table 5 were the total possible and actual score ranges for each instru- ment. A7 TABLE 5.-—Actua1 and total possible range for each instrument. Score ATPEl ATTE2 ATDP3 ATDP“ G115 Range Content Content Content Intensity Actual 22-A0 12—35 28-56 26-76 17-AA Possible lO-AO lO—AO 20-80 20—80 0-A9 1 Attitudes Toward Progressive Education Content. 2Attitudes Toward Traditional Education Content. 3Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Content. “Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Intensity. 5General Information Inventory. Differences in Mean ATPE Content, ATTE Content, ATDP Content, ATDP Inten- sity, and GII Scores Be- tween Male and Female Groups In Tables 6 through 15 were presented the data for comparison of mean differences on selected variables when the subjects were divided according to sex. A8 TABLE 6.——Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward progressive education (ATPE) scale comparing males with females. Mean of ATPE Standard Variable N Content Scale Deviation Male 55 32.072 3.877 Female 26 33.692 3.171 Total 81 32.593 3.72A TABLE 7.—-Ana1ysis of variance of the ATPE content scores comparing male and female scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories A6.308 1 A6.308 3.AAO 0.067 Within Categories 1063.2A8 79 l3.A59 Total 1109.556 80 A9 TABLE 8.--Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward traditional education (ATTE) scale comparing males with females. Mean of ATTE Standard Variable N Content Scale Deviation Male 55 22.818 3.963 Female 26 23.077 A.029 Total 81 22.901 3.961 TABLE 9.—-Ana1ysis of variance of the ATTE content scores comparing male and female scores. Source of Sum of Degree of . Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 1.181 1 1.182 0.07A 0.786 Within Categories 125A.028 79 15.87A Total 1255.210 80 50 TABLE 10.—-Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring males with females. Mean of ATDP Standard Variable N Content Scalel Deviation Male 55 A1.782 5.130 Female 26 A1.577 3.602 Total 81 A1.7l6 A.672 lLow score on ATDP content scale indicates positive attitude. TABLE 11.--Ana1ysis of variance of the ATDP content scores comparing male and female scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 0.7Al l 0.7Al 0.03A 0.855 Within Categories 17A5.728 79 22.098 Total 17A6.A69 80 51 TABLE 12.--Means and standard deviations of intensity scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale comparing males with females. Mean of ATDP Standard Variable N Intensity Scale Deviation Male 55 55.218 9.888 Female 26 56.230 7.112 Total 81 55.5A3 9.057 TABLE l3.--Ana1ysis of variance of the ATDP intensity scores comparing male and female scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 18.102 1 18.102 0.219 0.6Al Within Categories 65A3.997 79 82.835 Total 6562.099 80 52 TABLE 1A.-—Means and standard deviation of scores on the General Information Inventory (GII) comparing males and females. Mean of GII Standard Variable N Scores Deviation Male 55 32.3A5 A.1A2 Female 26 35.230 5.736 Total 81 33.272 A.868 TABLE 15.--Ana1ysis of variance of the G11 scores comparing male and female scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 1A6.973 l 1A6.973 6.638 0.012 Within Categories 17A9.052 79 22.1AO Total 1896.025 80 53 Summary_of Data in Tables 6:15 Although the sex variable was not of direct concern for this study, the data in Tables 6-15 help to determine the part sex, as an independent variable, may have played in determining the mean differences in the various scale and test scores. Study of Tables 6-13 suggests that sex difference was not a significant variable in determining the mean scores on the ATPE content scale, the ATTE con- tent scale, the ATDP content scale and the ATDP intensity scale. However, study of Tables 1A and 15 indicates that the sex variable may be significant in determining the GII test score since the mean score for females on this test of knowledge was significantly higher at the .01 level of significance than the mean score for males. Difference in Mean ATPE Content1 ATTE Content, ATDP Content, ATDP In- tensity, and GII Scores Between Educational Degree Groups Presented in Tables 16 through 25 were the data for comparison of mean differences on selected variables when the subjects were divided into two groups according to educational degree earned by the subject. One group was composed of those subjects with an M. A. degree or more, and the other group was composed of those subjects with Ph.D. degrees. 5A TABLE l6.--Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitude toward progressive education (ATPE) scale comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Mean of ATPE Standard Variable N Content Scale Deviation M. A. 22 32.500 3.635 Ph.D. 59 32.627 3.787 Total 81 32.593 3.72A TABLE l7.—-Analysis of variance of ATPE content scores com- paring subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 0.259 1 0.259 0.018 0.892 Within Categories 1109.297 79 lA.0A2 Total 1109.556 80 55 TABLE 18.—-Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward traditional education (ATTE) scale comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Mean of ATTE Standard Variable N Content Scale Deviation M. A. 22 2A.500 A.A05 Ph.D. 59 22.305 3.6A5 Total 81 22.901 3.961 TABLE 19.--Analysis of variance of ATTE content scores com- paring subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 77.201 1 77.201 5.177 0.026 Within Categories 1178.008 79 1A.911 Total 1255.210 80 56 TABLE 20.--Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Mean of ATDP Standard Variable N Content Scale Deviation M. A. 22 A0.000 3.532 Ph.D. 59 A2.356 A.905 Total 81 A1.716 A.672 TABLE 2l.--Ana1ysis of variance of ATDP content scores com- paring subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 88.9AA 1 88.9AA A.239 0.0A3 Within Categories 1657.525 79 20.981 Total 17A6.A69 80 57 TABLE 22.—~Means and standard deviations of intensity scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Mean of ATDP Standard Variable N Intensity Scale Deviation M. A. 22 58.863 8.25A Ph.D. 59 5A.305 9.096 Total 81 55.5A3 9.057 TABLE 23.--Ana1ysis of variance of ATDP intensity scores comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 332.999 1 332.999 A.223 0.0A3 Within Categories 6229.099 79 78.8A9 Total 6562.099 80 58 TABLE 2A.-—Means and standard deviations of scores on the General Information Inventory (GII) test comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Mean of GII Standard Variable N Test Score Deviation M. A. 22 33.773 5.15A Ph.D. 59 33.085 A.790 Total 81 33.272 A.868 TABLE 25.—-Analysis of variance of GII test scores comparing subjects holding M. A. degrees with subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of. Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 7.585 1 7.585 0.317 0.575 Within Categories 1888.AAO 79 23.90A Total 1896.025 80 59 Summary of Data in Tables 16-25 The educational degree variable, like the sex vari— able, was not of direct concern for this study. However, the data in Tables 16-25 help to determine the part edu- cational degree may have played in determining the mean differences in the various scale and test scores. Study of Tables 16-25 indicates that no mean differences based on educational degree grouping were significant at the .01 level of significance. However, study of Tables 18 and 19 reveals that subjects holding M. A. degrees have a significantly higher mean score, at the .05 level of significance, on the ATTE scale content scores than do subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. Study of Tables 20 and 21 indicates that subjects holding Ph.D. degrees have a significantly higher mean score, at the .05 level of significance, on the ATDP scale content scores than do subjects holding M. A. degrees. The ATDP content scale is scored such that lpwgp scores indicate positive atti- tudes. Tables 22 and 23 reveal that subjects holding M..A. degrees have significantly higher mean scores, at the .05 level of significance, on the ATDP scale intensity scores. The ATDP intensity scale is so scored that higher scores indicate more intensive feelings. 60 Zero—Ordgr Correlations Between Instrument Scores and Selected Variables TABLE 26.--Zero-order correlations between instrument scores and demographic and contact variables. ATPE ATTE ATDP ATDP GII Variable Content Content Content Intensity Test of Scale Scale Scale Scale Knowledge Sex N 81 81 81 81 81 r 0.2OA 0.031 -0.02l 0.052 0.278* Educational N 80 80 80 80 80 Degree r 0.026 —O.305** 0.26l* -0.l96 -0.l32 Age N 81 81 81 81 81 r 0.031 0.009 0.015 -0.179 -0.062 Number of N 80 80 80 80 80 Children r -0.01A -0.167 0.019 0.071 -0.029 Contact N 81 81 81 81 81 Amount r 0.038 —0.063 -0.328** 0.332** 0.1A8 Contact N 80 80 80 80 80 Avoidance r —0.062 0.057 0.388** -0.096 0.052 Contact Al- N 56 56 56 56 56 ternative r -0.027 0.09A -0.028 0.0A2 0.08A Contact N 79 79 79 79 79 Enjoyment r 0.1A0 0.003 -0.27A* 0.216 -0.038 *p < .05. **p < .01. Study of Table 26 indicates that the age variable and the number of children variable have little relationship to the various scale scores. 61 TABLE 27.--Zero-order correlations between selected demo- graphic variables and amount of contact with disabled persons. Educa- No. of Contact Variable Sex tional Age Degree Children Amount Sex N 81 r 1.000 Educational N 80 80 Degree r -0.388** 1.000 Age N 81 80 81 r 0.07A 0.036 1.000 Number of N 80 79 80 80 Children r -0.595** 0.176 -0.076 1.000 Contact N 81 80 81 80 81 Amount r -0.116 —0.l76 0.081 0.1A2 1.000 *p < .01. Study of Table 27 reveals that none of the selected variables correlate with amount of contact at the .05 level of significance. Educational degree is the variable with the largest correlation with contact amount, but it fails to achieve even the .10 level of significance. Section 2: Hypotheses Testederean Differences, and Correlational Analyses Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores H-l: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity 62 statements of the attitude toward disabled persons (ATDP) scales, regardless of whether attitude content is favor— able or unfavorable. In testing this hypothesis, perceived contact fre- quency scores were regarded as the independent variable and intensity scores on the ATDP scale were regarded as the dependent variable. Presented in Tables 28 and 29 were the data for comparison of mean differences of the ATDP intensity scores when the subjects were divided into two groups according to the frequency of contact with disabled persons. Subjects with 0 to A9 contacts with disabled persons were placed in the low-frequency of contact group and subjects with 100 to 500 or more con- tacts were placed in the high-frequency of contact group. The mean difference indicated by the significant F (p < .0005) indicates that frequency of contact with dis- abled persons does influence ATDP intensity scores. There- fore, H-l was confirmed. 63 TABLE 28.-—Means and standard deviations of intensity scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons. Contact N Mean of ATDP Standard Variable Intensity Scale Deviation High Frequency of Contact 31 59.968 7.57A Low Frequency of Contact 39 52.6A1 8.857 Total 70 55.886 9.032 TABLE 29.——Analysis of variance of the ATDP intensity scores comparing high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — F Between Categories 927.1AA l 927.1AA l3.A08 <0.0005 Within Categories A701.9A2 68 69.1A6 Total 5629.086 69 6A 51;: High frequency of contact with disabled per- sons will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding experiences, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact. Study of Table 30 indicates that the multiple cor- relation relating the combined contact variables and favorableness of attitudes toward disabled persons was significant at the .01 level of significance. Study of Table 30 also reveals that ease of avoidance and enjoyment of contact, when partialled out contributed most to pre- dicting attitudes toward disabled persons. Both the ease of avoidance and the enjoyment of contact variables made contributions which were significant at the .01 level of confidence. However, since these two major variables were not consistent in the direction of their relationships with the dependent variable, it could be assumed that the hy- pothesis was not confirmed (see further discussion of this hypothesis in Chapter V). The zero-order correlations of the variables related to this hypothesis were presented in Table 31. Study of this table reveals a negative correlation between the ATDP variable and each of the contact variables except ease of avoidance. 65 TABLE 30.--Partial and multiple correlations between con- tact variables (in respect to disabled persons) and content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale.l ATDP Contact Variable N=81 Partial Correlations Amount of contact -0 118 Avoidance of contact 0.378** Alternative to contact —0 103 Enjoyment of contact -0 388** Multiple correlation R = 0 585** **p < .01. 1Low scores on the ATDP content scale indicate posi- tive attitudes. TABLE 31.--Zero—order correlations between contact variables and content scores on the ATDP scale. ATDP Amount Avoid- Alterna- Enjoy- Variables Content of ance of tive to ment of Contact Contact Contact Contact ATDP N 81 Content r 1.000 Amount of N 81 81 Contact r -0.329** 1.000 Avoidance N 80 80 80 of Contact r 0.388** -0.A1A** 1.000 Alternative N 56 56 56 56 to Contact r —0.028 0.069 0.129 1.000 Enjoyment N 79 79 78 56 79 of Contact r -0.27A* 0.116 0.098 -0.0A0 1.000 *p < .05. **p < 01. 66 Hypothesis Related to Attitudes Toward Education and Disabled Persons H-3: Persons who score high1 in traditional and low2 in progressive attitudes toward education will also 3 in favorable attitudes toward disabled tend to score low persons. Presented in Tables 32 and 33 were the data for comparison of mean differences of the ATDP content scores when the subjects were divided into two groups defined by high (a score of 25 and above) and low (a score of 22 and below) scores on the ATTE scale. Presented in Tables 3A and 35 were the data for comparison of mean differences of the ATDP content scores when the subjects were divided into two groups defined by high (a score of 33 and above) and low (a score of 30 and below) scores on the ATPE scale. Study of Tables 32-35 reveals that mean differences for both educational scales were in the hypothesized direction. However, the mean differences were not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Therefore, the hypothesis was not confirmed. lHigh score on ATTE scale indicates favorable atti- tudes toward traditional education. 2Low score on ATPE scale indicates unfavorable atti- tudes toward progressive education. 3The ATDP scale is reversed so that a low score actually indicates favorable attitudes toward disabled persons. Therefore, a high score on the ATDP scale would indicate a "low score in favorable attitudes." I 67 TABLE 32.—-Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring high scores with low scores on the attitudes toward traditional education (ATTE) scale. ATTE N Mean of ATDPl Standard Variable Content Score Deviation High ATTE Score (25 and above) 30 A2.100 A.188 Low ATTE Score (22 and below) 31 A1.710 5.527 Total 61 A1.902 A.878 lLow score on ATDP content scale indicates positive attitudes. TABLE 33.—~Analysis of variance of the ATDP content scores comparing high and low ATTE scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Squares — F Between Categories 2.323 1 3.323 0.096 0.758 Within Categories 1A25.087 59 2A.15A Total 1A27.A10 60 68 TABLE 3A.--Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring high scores with low scores on the attitudes toward progressive education (ATPE) scale. ATPE Mean of ATDP Standard Variable Content Score Deviation High ATPE Score (33 and above) 39 A0.97A A.881 Low ATPE Score (30 and below) 25 A2.800 A.09A Total 6A Al.688 A.A72 lLow score on ATDP content scale indicates positive attitudes. TABLE 35.-—Analysis of variance of the ATDP content scores comparing high and low ATPE scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Square Freedom Square — F Between Categories 50.776 1 50.776 2.60A 0.112 Within Categories 1208.97A 62 19.500 Total 1259.750 63 69 Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Atti- tudes Toward Disabled Persons hlfl: Persons who score high on the General Infor- mation Inventory (GII) test of knowledge will tend to score high1 in favorable attitudes toward disabled persons. Tables 36 and 37 presented the data for comparison of mean differences of the ATDP content scores when the subjects were divided into two groups defined by high (a score of 36 and above) and low (a score of 32 and below) scores on the G11 test. Study of Tables 36 and 37 reveals that the mean difference in the ATDP content scores was not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Further study reveals that the relationship between GII scores and ATDP content scores was, in fact, the reverse of what was hy- pothesized. That is, high GII scores correlated with high scores on the ATDP content scale, and high scores on the ATDP content scale indicate unfavorable attitudes toward disabled persons. Therefore, H-A was not confirmed. lLow scores on the ATDP content scale actually indi- cate favorable attitudes. 70 TABLE 36.-~Means and standard deviations of content scores on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) scale com- paring high scores with low scores on the GII test. GII N Mean of ATDPl Standard Variable Content Score Deviation High GII Score (36 and above) 30 A3.067 5.030 Low GII Score (32 and below) 33 Al.030 A.283 Total 63 A2.000 A.728 lLow score on ATDP scale indicates positive attitudes. TABLE 37.--Analysis of variance of the ATDP content scores comparing high and low GII scores. Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean F Sig. of Variance Squares Freedom Square — E Between Categories 65.16A l 65.16A 3.009 0.088 Within Categories 1320.836 61 21.653 Total 1386.000 62 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUMMARY As the chapter title suggests, this chapter will be divided into three major sections. Section 1 is a dis- cussion of the nature of the sample and the results of hypothesis testing. Section 2 deals with recommendations for changes in future studies based on a discussion of theoretical and methodological issues. The final part, Section 3, presents the concluding summary in reference to the primary purpose of the study. Section 1: Discussion of Research Findings The raw data were first analyzed by frequency- distribution procedures. Several tables were derived from the frequency analysis. The frequency analysis was also used as an aid to variable dichotomization. The data were next exposed to the MDSTAT program for the CDC 3600 com- puter at Michigan State University. The resulting mean scores and zero-order correlations were used as a basis for determining which variables, other than those in- volved in hypotheses, might be considered as determinants 71 72 of the various scale and test scores. Two variables, sex and educational degree, were then subjected to a one-way analysis of variance. Lastly, the research hypotheses were tested by mean comparisons and multiple and partial correlations. The Nature of the Sample Study of Table 1 reveals no unusual patterns of contact of college counselors with physically disabled persons. Study of Table 5 similarly reveals that the sample of college counselors selected for this study was not unlike more heterogeneous samples used in earlier studies (Felty, 1965; Friesen, 1966) regarding the range of scores achieved on the various scales. Over 80% of the sample has had little or no contact with physically disabled persons on a professional level as a counselor. Although not hypothesized, two variables, sex and educational degree, emerge as possible determinants of the scale and test scores. Comparisons of mean score differ- ences between males and females on the various scales and the G11 test revealed that sex differences accounted for a significant mean difference on only the G11 test of knowledge. On the GII test of knowledge, the female mean score was significantly higher at the .01 level of ' significance. This would suggest that, if there is a possible relationship between GII scores and attitude 73 toward disabled persons (ATDP) content scores, sex differ- ence might be considered a complicating factor. A comparison of mean scale and test score differences was made between subjects holding Ph.D. degrees and sub- jects holding M. A. degrees. Educational degree, as an independent variable, appears to account for several significant mean differences. M. A. degree holders have a significantly higher mean score on the attitudes toward traditional education (ATTE) content scale at the .05 level of significance. M. A. degree holders also have significantly lower mean scores (indicating more positive attitudes) on the ATDP content scale at the .05 level of confidence than do Ph.D. degree holders (Tables 20 and 21). Study of Tables 22 and 23 reveals that the mean scores on the ATDP intensity scale were significantly higher at the .05 level of significance for M. A. degree holders than for Ph.D. degree holders. This mean differ— ence suggests that educational degree may complicate the relationship between the ATDP intensity scale scores and other independent variables. Hypothesis Related to Contact Frequency and Intensity Scores on the ATDP Scale (H-l) The hypothesis related to contact frequency and in- tensity scores on the ATDP scale states that higher fre- quency of contact with disabled persons will produce greater intensity of attitude irrespective of the 7A attitude content. Subjects with high frequency of con- tact did have a significantly higher mean score at the .0005 level of confidence on the ATDP intensity scale. Examination of the correlational data reveals that the contact amount variable correlated with the ATDP in- tensity score at the .01 level of significance. However, no other demographic or contact variable had a zero-order correlation at even the .05 level of significance with the ATDP intensity score. The fact that subjects holding M. A. degrees had significantly higher mean scores on the ATDP intensity scale may indicate that the educational degree variable accounted for part of the positive correlation between contact amount and the ATDP intensity score. However, examination of Table 27 (p. 61) reveals that the -O.l76 correlation between contact amount and educational degree was not significant at the .05 level of significance. The above discussion would seem to suggest that, for this sample of college counselors, frequency of con- tact was a significant determinant of intensity of atti— tudes as measured by the ATDP intensity scale. Study of Table 26 (p. 60) suggests that intensity of attitude is not entirely a function of frequency of contact. It may be related to a number of factors such as educational degree, age, enjoyment of contact, and, perhaps, some factors not considered in this study. 75 Hypothesis Related to Contact Variables and ATDP Content Scores (H—2) This hypothesis states that high frequency of con- tact with disabled persons is associated with favorable- ness of attitude if (a) there are other rewarding activi- ties in which to engage, (b) the contact was enjoyable, and (c) the interaction could be easily avoided. The assumption underlying this hypothesis was that the amount of contact with physically disabled persons does not by itself produce favorable attitudes. Such factors as en- joyment of the contact and ability to avoid the contact determine whether the resulting attitude will be positive or negative. The multiple correlation of 0.585 between the com- bined contact variables and the criterion measure was significant. These several variables do relate positively (at the .01 level of significance) to attitudes toward disabled persons as measured by the ATDP content scale. But, the partial correlations revealed that the two pre- dictors that contributed most significantly to the multiple correlation related to the criterion in opposite directions. Therefore, the hypothesis was considered not confirmed. It should be noted that the distribution of scores in Table l (p. A5) is bi-modal. This poses difficulties of interpretation for all correlation analyses which are built on the assumption of normality of distribution. 76 The difficulties in multiple correlation are further complicated by the unpredictable manner in which the individual predictors enter into the correlation. The enjoyment of contact predictor had a -0.388 correlation with the criterion which was significant at the .01 level of confidence. This predictor correlated with the ATDP content scores in the hypothesized di- rection. High enjoyment of contact correlated with low scores (indicating favorable attitudes) on the ATDP scale. The avoidance of contact predictor, however, had a positive 0.378 correlation with the criterion measure which was also significant at the .01 level of confidence. This predictor correlated with the ATDP content scores in a direction which was opposite to what was hypothesized. Subjects who find it easy to avoid contact with disabled persons tend to score high (indicating unfavorable atti- tudes) on the ATDP content scale and subjects who find it hard to avoid contact with disabled persons tend to score low (indicating favorable attitudes) on the ATDP content scale. It is difficult to explain the relationship between the ease of avoidance variable and the criterion measure. TWC) other studies tested this hypothesis with different pOpulations, using the same methodology, and found this variable to correlate with the criterion measure in the fum>othesized direction (Friesen, 1966; Sinha, 1966). It may be that the population of college counselors can 77 account for the difference. It may be that the college counselors in the sample responded to the ease of avoid— ance variable in quite a different manner than did the more heterogenous, less sophisticated subjects of the two previous studies. The present study would suggest that item #85 in the questionnaire, which attempts to define the ease with which respondents can avoid contact with disabled persons, could be interpreted in two different ways. Item #85 reads as follows: I 85. When you have been in contact with physically handicapped people, how gahy 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 0 O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O l I could generally have avoided these per- sonal contacts only with considerable difficulty . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I could generally have avoided these per- sonal contacts, but with some incon- venience . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I could generally have avoided these per— sonal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience . . . . . . . . . . A In the previous studies (Friesen, 1966; Sinha, 1966), thee respondents apparently responded to the item in the Way the authors had anticipated they would respond. They Viewed contact with disabled persons which were "hard to avoid" as unpleasant. Contacts which they could avoid "only at great cost or difficulty" were thought of as 78 contacts they were forced to have. These contacts were not a matter of personal choice so they gave birth to negative feelings toward those with whom they could not avoid having contact. On the other hand, contacts re- sulting from choice (avoided without difficulty or in— convenience) sponsored positive feelings toward disabled persons. College counselors, it is suggested, are likely to be inclined to move toward people. The word "avoid" may have suggested to them an attempt to side-step or dodge or even to turn their backs to personal contacts with disabled persons. Thus, the subjects of the present study may have felt it most inappropriate to move away from or to avoid contact with disabled persons. As a result, the counselors who have positive feelings toward disabled per- sons stated they "could have avoided these personal con- tacts only at great cost or difficulty." Inversely, those counselors who could avoid (side—step) personal contacts with disabled persons "without any difficulty or incon- venience" are those counselors who have negative feelings toward physically disabled persons. The above argument may be further supported by the -0.A1A zero—order correlation between the ease of avoidance variable and the amount of contact variable. The corre- lation, which is significant at the .01 level of signifi- cance, may indicate that counselors who find it easy to avoid (side-step) contact with disabled persons are 79 counselors who manage to have little contact with dis- abled persons. If the above argument is valid, then it can be argued that the "difficulty of avoidance" variable is a fair predictor of positive attitudes of college counselors toward physically disabled persons. Therefore, the pre- dictors do all relate to the criterion measure in the same direction (the avoidance variable was simply coded the wrong way) and the multiple correlation of .585 is both significant and meaningful. If the above can be assumed to be true, then the hypothesis can be considered confirmed. Hypothesis Related to Attitudes Toward Education and Disabled Persons (H-3) Hypothesis H—3 states that persons who score high in traditional and low in progressive attitudes toward education will also tend to score low in favorable atti- tudes toward disabled persons. This hypothesis was built on the assumption that persons who score low on "progres- sive" and high on "traditional" attitudes toward edu- cation were persons who tend to want to maintain the status quo and were persons who tend to value social structure above persons. Thus, they tend to evaluate persons in terms of what they do to help maintain the social structure. The handicapped person, therefore, who may not be able to play a known or familiar role in 80 maintaining the social structure, may be devalued (Wright, 1960). Mean differences for both educational scales were in the hypothesized direction, but neither mean differ— ence was significant at the .05 level of significance (Tables 32-35). This hypothesis, therefore, was not confirmed. It was noted in an earlier discussion in this chapter that subjects holding M. A. degrees have signifi- cantly higher mean scores on the ATTE content scale (in- dicating positive attitudes) than do subjects holding Ph.D. degrees. This may indicate that college counselors who hold M. A. degrees favor traditional education as de- fined by the ATTE content scale more than do college counselors who hold Ph.D. degrees. This significant mean difference may also suggest that the small positive re- lationship between ATTE content scores and unfavorable scores (high scores) on the attitudes toward disabled persons (ATDP) content scale can be accounted for by difference in educational degree. The above findings were, however, complicated by the fact that M. A. degree holders have significantly lower mean scores (indicating more positive attitudes) on the ATDP content scale at the .05 level of confidence than do Ph.D. degree holders. Therefore, it is suggested that the role that educational degree plays in the 81 relationship between ATTE content scale scores and ATDP content scale scores is unclear. Hypothesis Related to Knowledge of Disabled Persons and Atti— tudes Toward Disabled Persons (H-A) This hypothesis is concerned with the relationship between measured amount of knowledge of disabled persons and attitudes toward disabled persons. The hypothesis states that persons who score high on the GII test of knowledge will tend to score high in favorable attitudes toward disabled persons. The assumption underlying this hypothesis is that lack of information or misinformation is one factor that allows unfavorable attitudes to exist. Not only was this hypothesis unconfirmed, but the relationship between the G11 test of knowledge scores and the criterion measure was the reverse of what was hy- pothesized. This unexpected relationship may be a function of several factors. First, it may be that those subjects who had the most knowledge of disabled persons were sub- jects who responded negatively to the stereotypical and normative type scales that were employed (see discussion in Chapter III under "Limitations of the Present Study"). Secondly, it may be true that the lack of information or misinformation is a factor that allows unfavorable atti- tudes to exist. It does not necessarily follow, though, that to be well informed is a factor that encourages 82 favorable attitudes. The process of attitude change is, perhaps, far more complicated than this. Thirdly, it may be speculated that those college counselors who had more knowledge about disabled persons tended to feel that disabled persons, due to their unique physical condition as well as the unique response they elicit from society, do have special needs and do need special treatment. It may be that the better informed college counselor does feel that the physically disabled person is by his very nature in a "special group." The ATDP scale, which equates "seeing disabled persons as different" with "negative attitudes toward disabled persons" may, then, erroneously define the better informed college counselor as having negative attitudes toward physically disabled persons. Lastly, it appears that the G11 test of knowl- edge was not altogether appropriate for this population. The Kuder Richardson #20 test of reliability was marginally acceptable, but the index of difficulty was far too low to be acceptable (see discussion in Chapter III under "Limi- tations of the Present Study"). An earlier discussion in the present study (p. 73) was concerned with the part which sex difference might play in determining mean differences of ATDP content score when the subjects are divided according to high and low GII scores. This concern grew out of the fact that the female mean score was significantly higher at the .01 level of significance on the G11 test of knowledge. 83 However, since there was no meaningful relationship be— tween the 011 test and the ATDP content scores, the mean difference in female GII test scores was not considered further. Section 2: Theoretical and Methodological Issues, and Recommendations Theoretical Issues The principal concern of this study was the nature and determinants of attitudes toward physically disabled persons. Study of the perceived nature of attitudes to- ward physically disabled persons was considered in terms of intensity of attitude and whether the attitudes were positive or negative. Attitude determinants considered were perceived amount and perceived nature of contact with disabled persons, attitudes toward education, and amount of knowledge of the needs and conditions of various dis- abilities. For the purposes of this study, Guttman's definition of attitude as a "delimited totality of be- havior with respect to something" (1950, p. 51) was ac- cepted. "Behavior," as Guttman (1950) uses the term, in- cludes cognitive, verbal, and physical acts. The scope of the present study was limited to cognitive attitudinal acts defined by Guttman as "stereotypical" and "normative" in nature (1959, p. 319). This matter was discussed in more detail in Chapter I (p. 5) and in Chapter 111 (pp. A3, AA) of the present study. 8A Contact Amount and Attitude Intensity Attitude intensity was considered to be important for several reasons (see discussion in Chapter II). For the present study, the interest in attitude intensity was primarily a result of a suggested relationship between attitude intensity and amount of personal Contact (Guttman and Foa, 1951) with the added assumption that the intensity component of an attitude may be considered as an action predictor (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 336). Two recent studies of the relationship between amount of con- tact and intensity of attitudes suggested that more fre- quent contact sometimes reduces intensity of attitudes (Sinha, 1966, p. 2A5; Friesen, 1966, p. 225). The present‘ study, however, reported that, for college counselors, increased frequency of contact may be a determinant of more intense attitudes. It is possible that the differ- ence between the previous studies and the present study can be accounted for by the nature of the college counselor and his work. It may be that for the "man in general" more frequent contact leads to a lessening of fears, suspicions, and stereotypes which in turn reduces intensity of atti- tudes. The college counselor may find, however, that more frequent contact leads to more involvement and thus attitudes may become more intense. This suggestion may be further strengthened by the fact that there was a significant (at the .01-level of confidence) zero-order 85 correlation between high frequency of contact and positive attitudes toward disabled persons. That is, for college counselors frequency of contact does seem to have some bearing on the nature of attitudes both in terms of in- tensity and content. Contact Variables and Attitude Content Several studies have suggested that the nature as well as the frequency of contacts with disabled persons may combine to determine whether the resulting attitudes will be positive or negative (Allport, 1958; Rosenberg, 1960; Jacobson g£_ai., 1960; Zetterberg, 1963). As a result, several contact variables were combined with con- tact amount and it was predicted that these variables as a group would correlate positively with favorable atti- tudes toward disabled persons. Zetterberg (1963, p. 13) had suggested that one factor influencing the nature of attitudes resulting from personal contact could be the "cost of avoiding interaction." In his opinion, the atti- tude resulting from personal contact would be more likely to be positive if the cost of avoiding interaction were low. However, when the cost of avoidance variable was combined with an enjoyment of contact variable, an alter- native job available variable, and an amount of contact variable, it was found that the cost (or ease) of avoid- ance variable alone did not relate to the criterion mea- sure in the predicted positive direction. The suggestion 86 was then made that perhaps college counselors were re— sponding to this item, which attempts to measure the cost (or ease) of avoidance variable, in a manner which differs considerably from the response of more heterogenous popu— lations. There is good reason to suggest that both the theory underlying the cost (or ease) of avoidance vari- able and the item which attempts to measure the variable should be exposed to more rigorous testing. The fact still remains that the combined contact variables, with further refinement, may prove to be useful predictors of positive and negative attitudes toward specified social objects. Attitudes Toward Education and Attitudes Toward Dis- abled Persons Kerlinger's theoretical model was used as a basis for this aspect of the present study (Kerlinger, 1958). The model is built on a dichotomization, but not polar— ization, of attitudes toward education into "traditional" and "progressive" attitudes (see Chapter II, pp. 21-25 for a summarization of Kerlinger's propositions concern- ing traditional and progressive education). The present study hypothesized that favorable atti- tudes toward traditional education and unfavorable atti- tudes toward progressive education would combine to pre- dict unfavorable attitudes toward disabled persons. This 87 hypothesis, however, did not prove to be supported with the sample of college counselors used in the present study. Kerlinger proposes that occupational or professional role will be one of the predictors of attitudes toward education. He contends that, "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" (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 290). The sample of college counselors used in the present study had similar occu- pational and professional roles and this may account in part for the considerable difference in mean scores on the traditional (22.901 mean score) and the progressive (32.593 mean score) scales. That is, the sample subjects appear to stand together in less favorable attitudes to- ward traditional and more favorable attitudes toward pro- gressive education. It should be noted that Kerlinger's theory does not fully make allowance for a finding such as the signifi— cant mean difference on the ATTE scale between counselors with M. A. degrees and counselors with Ph.D. degrees. It was reported in Chapter IV that counselors with M. A. degrees had significantly higher mean scores (at the .05 level of confidence) on the ATTE scale than did counselors with Ph.D. degrees. This matter clearly calls for further study. 88 Amount of Information and Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons There was some evidence to suggest that increased knowledge or information reduces prejudice and sponsors favorable attitudes (Nelson, 1939). Haring gh_a;. (1958), however, concluded that "increased knowledge per se was not found to be a significant factor in effecting modifi- cation of (teachers') attitudes toward exceptional chil- dren" (p. 130). The finding of the present study further suggests that knowledge per se is not a significant factor in determining attitudes toward disabled persons. It appears that the matter may be far more complicated than the author of the present study had first supposed it to be. Perhaps the knowledge variable ought to be further de- fined and treated as a group variable such as was the contact variable. Such matters as the nature of the knowledge, the way in which it was obtained, and the context in which it was obtained might be considered. Methodological Issues One of the primary methodological issues was the adequacy of the research design. The present study was defined as pioneering and investigative in nature. A single exposure to a lengthy set of self-administered instruments, however, is not considered to be a strong design for any research attempt. One positive note is 89 the fact that this study was in large part a replication of several other studies. This study finds some of its strength and justification, therefore, in the fact that it was but one small part of a much larger effort. Each part of the larger effort tends to be a cross—check on the other parts. Much has already been said about the selection of instruments and their psychometric properties. It has already been suggested that stereotypical and normative type scales used in the present study may not be alto- gether appropriate for a sample of college counselors. Unsolicited written responses from several sample sub- jects indicate a strong distaste for responding to in- struments which ask the respondent to think in stereo- typical concepts about individuals. The reliability and the validity of the General Information Inventory as revised for the present study is under considerable question. It is possible that the G11 would be more appropriate for more heterogeneous popu- lations. Further discussion of the rationale for the instru- ment selection and the limitations of the various instru- ments can be found in Chapter III (pp. Al-A3). A dis- cussion of the problems of measuring attitudes can be found in Chapter II, pp. 15-17. 90 The question of concept equivalence was brought to the fore in the discussion in Chapter V of the "ease of avoidance" variable (pp. 76—79). There is good reason to suppose that the meaning of many of the significant mean differences and the meaning of the significant zero- order correlations were considerably complicated by in— consistent attitudinal reactions of the subjects. That is, it is difficult to know whether or not the subject responded to the specific items in the instrument as the researcher intended. It is also difficult to predict the extent of and the meaning of varied responses. In the discussion of the "ease of avoidance variable," (Chapter V, pp. 76—79) the present study has suggested that the subjects responded in a way that was opposite to what was anticipated. Another problem to be considered was the extent to which the instrument items adequately sample the attitude universe in the specified area of concern. It is diffi- cult to suppose that Kerlinger's ten—item traditional and progressive education scales were, in fact, representative of the attitude universe in these specified areas. More consideration, also, could be given to the assumed uni- dimensionality of the several scales. Kerlinger has, in fact, discovered that his education scales are multi- dimensional. He feels, however, that he is still able to treat the scales as though they were unidimensional (Kerlinger, 1967, p. 203). 91 Sampling procedures were discussed in Chapter 111 (pp. 3A-36). Needless to say, more efficient methods could be employed. It is conceivable that more current lists of qualified counselors could have been obtained directly from the administrative heads of the various counseling centers. Recommendations The following recommendations are an outgrowth of the foregoing discussion of theoretical and methodological issues. Research Design.--It is recommended that more repli— cations of the study of attitudes toward disabled persons be made with distinct subgroups. This type of design affords a more sensitive check on the possible misinter- pretation of data that results from problems with concept equivalence. It is further suggested that an attempt to cross validate one of the studies of a specific subgroup would be most useful in evaluating the usefulness of the instru- ments. Comparisons of the known attitudes of certain subgroups toward other social objects with the subgroup's attitudes toward disabled persons might also be useful in interpreting data findings. Selection and Analysis of Instruments.--It is sug- gested that serious consideration be given to constructing scales which will attempt to measure attitudes on the 92 hypothetical interaction level (see Guttman, 1959, p. 319). It would also seem appropriate to consider some attempts to operationalize the assumptions underlying attitudes by attempting to measure the overt actions of specified attitudinal groups. Study of the unexpected (even though statistically insignificant) relationship between amount of knowledge and attitudes toward disabled persons leads to the speculation that better informed college counselors may, in fact, see physically disabled persons as "different" than physically normal persons. Therefore, it is sug- gested that the assumption underlying the ATDP scale be given further consideration. It is recommended that the instrument which was designed to measure amount of knowledge in the present study, namely the revised form of the General Information Inventory, be replaced with a more sophisticated instru- ment. It is suggested that the new instrument should attempt to measure not only amount of knowledge, but also the nature of the knowledge, the way in which it was ob— tained, and the context in which it was obtained. It is also suggested that the educational scales could be enlarged and analyzed to attempt to improve the extent to which they are representative of the attitude universe (see Friesen, 1966, pp. 2A2-250, for a discussion of scale analysis). 93 Section 3: Concluding Summary Four hypotheses were stated in this study in an effort to gain some insight into the nature and the determinants of attitudes toward physically disabled persons. One hypothesis was considered confirmed. The confirmation of this hypothesis suggests that the impact of personal contact does increase the attitude intensity of college counselors. It was further speculated that the perceived nature of college counselors and their work is such that increased perceived contact may lead to more favorable attitudes. In a previous discussion it was suggested (p. 8A) that intensity might be considered a predictor of action. The significant relationship between perceived amount of contact, nature of contact and intensity of attitudes, may suggest that the population of college counselors sampled by this study are likely to act positively toward physically disabled persons. However, the study of the relationship between intensity of attitudes and behavior is beyond the scope of this study. The second hypothesis was confirmed only conditionally. It was strongly suggested that a problem with concept equi- valence interfered with the confirmation of this hypothesis. If a reinterpretation of the data analysis can be con— sidered acceptable, the findings may, indeed, have some meaning. It appears that enjoyment of contact, availability 9A of alternative rewards and difficulty of avoiding (side— stepping) contacts with disabled persons may combine with amount of contact to predict favorable attitudes of col- lege counselors toward physically disabled persons. The third hypothesis was left unconfirmed. The findings related to this hypothesis suggest that the relationship between attitudes toward education and atti- tudes toward disabled persons is unclear for college I counselors. The relationships between the independent variables and the criterion measure were in the hy— pothesized direction, but they were not statistically significant. The last hypothesis was also unconfirmed. The findings were such that the relationship between high: amount of knowledge and positive attitudes toward dis- abled persons was not only unclear, but a small negative correlation suggests that the hypothesis is under serious question. I A major suggestion, resulting from the research findings, is that more replications of the study be made with distinct subgroups in an effort to more clearly de- fine the problems surrounding concept equivalence. A second suggestion is that consideration be given to the validity of the assumption underlying the ATDP scale: that viewing the disabled person as being differ- ent from the physically normal person is equivalent to holding negative attitudes toward the physically disabled person. REFERENCES 95 REFERENCES Allen, F. H., & Pearson, G. H. J. The emotional problems of the physically handicapped child. British J. of Medical Psychol., 1928, 8, 212-235. Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday and Com- pany, Inc., 1958. American Personnel and Guidance Assoc. Directory of members 1965-66. Washington, D. 0.: Author, 1965. American Psychological Assoc. American Psychological Association 1966 directory. Washington, D. 0.: Author, 1966. Auvenshine, C. D. The development of a scale for measur— ing attitudes toward severely handicapped college students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Missouri, 1962. Badt, Margit I. Attitudes of university students toward exceptional children and special education. Except. Child., 1957, 23, 286-290, 336. Barker, R. G. The social psychology of physical disability. J. of Soc. Issues, 19A8, 6, 28—35. Barker, R. G., Wright, Beatrice A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M. Adjustment to physical handicap and illness: A survey of the social psychology of physique and dis- ability. Bulletin of the Social Science Research Council, New York, 1953. Carlson, E. R. Attitude change through modification of attitude structure. J. Abnormal & Soc. Psychol., 1956, 52, 256-261. Cattell, R. B. (Ed.) Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 96 97 Chesler, M. A. Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the physically disabled. J. of Pers. and Soc. Psychol., 1965, 2, 877-882. Clark, J. Manual of computer programs. Research Ser- vices, Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 196A (mimeo). Cohen, J. S. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. Amer. J. of Ment. Defic., 1963, 67(5), 705-713. Coughlin, Ellen. Some parental attitudes toward handi- capped children. The Child, l9Al, 6, Al—A5. Felty, F. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson and Co., 1957. Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in Opinion re- search. Int. J. of Opin. & Att. Res., 1950, A, 192-208. Friesen, E. W. Nature and determinants of attitudes toward education and toward physically disabled persons in Colombia, Peru, and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for intensity and scale analysis. Educ. and Psychol. Measmt., 19A7, 7, 2A7-280. Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure— ment. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Pub. Opin. Quart., Winter 195A, 18, 395-AOA. (a) Guttman, L. The principal components of scalable attitudes. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 195A. (b) Guttman, L. A structural theory for the intergroup be— liefs and action. Amer. Sociol. Rev., 1959, 2A, 318-328. 98 Guttman, L., & Foa, N. G. Social contact and an inter- group attitude. Pub. Opin. Quart., Spring 1951, 143-53. Hamilton, K. W. Counseling the handicapped in the re— habilitation process. New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1950. Handel, A. F. Community attitudes and adjustment to disability. Outlook for the Blind, 1960, 5A, 361- 367. Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G., & Cruickshank, W. M. Attitude of educators toward exceptional children. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1958. Himes, J. B. Measuring social distance in relations with the blind. Outlook for the Blind, 1960, 5A, 5A-58. Homans, G. C. The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1950. Jacobson, E., Kumata, H., & Gullahorn, Jeanne E. Cross- cultural contributions to attitude research. Pub. Opin. Quart., Summer 1960, 2A, 205—223. Jaques, Marceline. Rehabilitation: Historical origins. In C. H. Patterson (Ed.), Readings in rehabilitation counseling. Champaign, 111.: Stripes Pub. Co., 1960. Jordan, J. E. The university looks at rehabilitation: An international perspective. J. of the Mich. Medical Soc., 1962, 61, 620. Jordan, J. E. Rehabilitation and special education in Latin America. Papers read before the Inter- American Congress of Psychology, Mar Del Plata, Argentina, April, 1963; and at the Second Inter- national Seminar of Special Education, Nyborg, Denmark, 1963. Jordan, J. E. Cross-cultural attitudes toward disability. Paper read at the Ninth Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Miami, Florida, December, 196A. (a) Jordan, J. E. Cross-national research in special edu- cation from Inspection and Introspection of Special Education. Selected Convention Papers, A2nd Annual 0. E. C. Convention, Washington, D. C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, N. E. A., 196A. (b) 99 Katz, D. The functional approach to the study of atti— tudes. Pub. Opin. Quart., Summer 1960, 2A, 163-20A. Kerlinger, F. N. The attitude structure of the indi— vidual: A Q—study of the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. Genetic Psychol., 1956, 53, 283-329. Kerlinger, F. N. Progressiveness and Traditionalism: Basic factors of educational attitudes. J. soc. Psychol., 1958, 68, 111-135. Kerlinger, F. N. Factor invariance in the measurement of attitudes toward education. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1961, 21, 273-285. Kerlinger, F. N. The first- and second-order factor structures of attitudes toward education. Amer. 'Educ. research J., 1967, 3, 191-215. Kerlinger, F. N. Manual for education scale I and edu- cation scale 11. New York University (mimeo). Kerlinger, F. N., & Kaya, E. The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educ. psychol. Measmt., 1959, 19, 13-29. Lingoes, J. C. Multiple scalogram analysis: A set theoretical model for analyzing dichotomous items. Educ. paychol. Measmt., 1963, 23, 501-52A. Lofquist, L. H. Vocational counseling with physically handicapped. New York: Appleton—Century—Crofts, 1957. Lofquist, L. H. Paychological research and rehabilitation. Washington, D. C.: Amer.5Psych. Assoc., 1963. Lond, L. H. (Ed.) The world almanac. New York: News— paper Enterprise Assn., Inc., 1966, 730-7A8. Mayer, C. S., & Pratt, R. W., Jr. A note on nonresponse in a mail survey. Pub. Opin. Quart., 1967, 637-6A6. McGowan, J. F. (Ed.) An introduction to the vocational rehabilitation process. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Govt. Print. Off., 1960. McNemar, Q. Opinion—attitude methodology. Psychological Bull., 19u6, A3(A), 289-37A. {rd-L our. 3.1; . _ . 100 Mussen, P. H., & Barker, R. G. Attitudes toward cripples. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 19AA, 39, 351-355. Nelson, E. Attitudes: (1) Their nature and development. J. Genetic Psychol., 1939, 21, 367-399. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Pub. Opin. Quart., Summer 1960, 2A, 319-3A0. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation of least squares (regression) problems on the LS Routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7, Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1966. (a) Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. One-way analysis of variance with unequal number of repli- cations permitted. (UNEQI Routine.) Stat. Series Description No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (b) Ruble, W. L., & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation of basic statistics when missing data are involved. (The MDSTAT Routine.) Stat. Series Description No. 6, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Rusalem, H. Guiding the physically handicapped college student. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962. Schletzer, Daives, England, & Lofquist. Minnesota Stud. Vocat. Rehab., No. 11. University of Minn. Indust. Res. Center, 1961. Schwirian, K. P., & Blaine, H. R. Questionnaire-return bias in the study of blue collar workers. Pub. Opin. Quart., 1967, 656-663. Sinha, B. K. Maternal attitudes and values in respect to emotionally disturbed and physically disabled per— sons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Stouffer, S. A. An overview of the contributions to scal- ing and scale theory. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazaresfeld, Shirley A. Star, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. 101 Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer, L. Guttman, E. A. Suchman, P. F. Lazaresfeld, Shirley A. Starr, & J. A. Clausen (Eds.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1950. Sullivan, P. L., & Adelson, J. Ethnocentrism and mis- anthropy. J. abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 195A, A9, 2A6-250. Thurston, L. L. Attitudes can be measured. Amer. J. Soc., 1928, 33, 529-55“- Vinacke, W. E. The psychology of thinking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1952. Wright, Beatrice A. Physical disability: A psychological approach. New York: Harper, 1960. Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons. Human resources Stud., No. 5. Alberton, N. Y.: Human Resources Foundation, 1960. Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Younng, Janet. The measure- ment of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human resources Stud., No. 7. Alberton, N. Y.: Human Resources Center, 1966. Zetterberg, H. L. On theory and verification in sociology. Totawa, N. J.: Bedminster Press, 1963. APPENDICES 102 APPENDIX A EDUCATION SCALE 103 EDUCATION SCALE Instructions: Given below are some statements of opinion about education. We all think differently about schools and education. Here you are asked to express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers follow- ing each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a heavy black mark after the correspond- ing number on the answer sheet. 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 heavy black mark after the number you select on the answer sheet. 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 A. Strongly agree 2. About how strongly do you feel about your answer (above)? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 3. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree A. About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 10. Schools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and arithmetic: the three R's. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Teachers, like university professors, should have academic freedom--freedom to teach what they think is right and best. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 11. l2. 13. 1A. 150 16. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The traditional moral standards of our culture should not just be accepted; they should be examined and tested in solving the present problems of students. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to test alternatives before accepting any of them. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 23. 2A, 25. 26. 27. 28. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well established standards. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. Education and educational institutions must be sources of social ideas; education must be a social program undergoing continual reconstructions. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than they usually get. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knoWledge. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. 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 A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX B HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE 111 HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE Instructions: Given below are some statements of opinion about physically handicapped persons. We all think differ- ently about persons with physical handicaps. Here you are asked to 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 state- ments. Please mark,your answer by placing a heavy black mark after the corresponding number on the answer sheet. 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 heayy black mark after the number you select on the answer sheet. A1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree A2. About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly A3. Physically handicapped persons are just as intelli— gent as non-handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree AA. About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly “5. A6. A7. A8. A9. 50. Handicapped people are usually easier to get along with than other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Most physically handicapped people feel sorry for themselves. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are the same as anyone else. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 51. 52. 53- 5A. 55. 56. 10 There shouldn't be special schools for physically handicapped children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It would be best for physically handicapped persons to live and work in special communities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is up to the government to take care of physically handicapped persons. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 11 Most physically handicapped people worry a great deal. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people should not be expected to meet the same standards as non—handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicappedqpeople are as happy as non- handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 63. 6A. 65. 66. 67. 68. 12 Severely physically handicapped people are no harder to get along with than those with minor handicaps. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is almost impossible for a handicapped perons to lead a normal life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answers? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly You should not expect too much from physically handi- capped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7A. 13 Physically handicapped people tend to keep to them- selves much of the time. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are more easily upset than non-handicapped peOple. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped persons cannot have a normal social life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 1A Most physically handicapped people feel that they are not as good as other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly You have to be careful of what you say when you are with physically handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are often grouchy. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX C PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE 119 o‘r‘n..~'..r my)- s- “lx§£‘ :- 0‘... b | Lunr :’.- 15 PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part deals with your contacts with physically handicapped per- sons, and what you know about them. Perhaps you have had much contact with physically handcapped 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 important, so even if you know very little or nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers are important. The second part of the questionnaire has to do with per- sonal 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 every question. 16 Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by placing a heavy black mark after the corresponding number on the answer sheet. 81. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below. In respect to these various handicaps, which have you had the most actual experience with. Choose only one. 1. blind and partially blind 2. deaf (and deaf-mute) and partially deaf 3. crippling, orthopedic, spastic, and disfiguring handicaps A. speech disorders 5. none 82. Which other group have you also had some experience with? Please choose the number of one additional group with which you have had some experience. 1. 2. blind and partially blind deaf (and deaf—mute) and partially deaf crippled, orthopedic, spastic, and disfiguring handicaps speech disorders none 83. 8A. 17 The following question has to do with the kinds of experience you have had with physically handicapped persons. Please choose the experience with the largest number that applies to you. I have read or heard about physically handi— capped persons or have studied about physi- cally handicapped persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations . . . . . 1 A friend or relative is physically handicapped. . 2 I have personally worked with physically handi- capped persons, as a teacher, counselor, volun- teer, child care, etc. . . . . . . . . . 3 My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband) or child is physically handicapped. . . . . . A I, myself, have a physical handicap . . . . . 5 Considering all of the time 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 choose 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. . . . . . . A More than 500 occasions. . . . . . . . . 5 85. 86. 18 When you have been in contact with physically handi- capped people, how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being with these handi- capped persons? I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty . . . l 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. A During your contact with physically handicapped persons, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain . . . . . . . . 1 Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped persons . . . . . . . . 2 Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain . . . . . . . . . 3 Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit . . . . . . . . . . A 87. 88. 89. 19 If you have never been paid for working with handi- capped persons go on to the 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 10% . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 25% . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 25 and 50% . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 50 and 75% . . . . . . . . . . A More than 75% . . . . . . . . . . . . 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 . . . . . . . A If you have ever worked with the physically handicapped for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, something else that wa£5(or is) acceptable to you as a job? I do not know what other jobs were available or acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 No other job was available. . . . . . . . 2 Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me 5 90. 91. 92. 93. 20 Please indicate your sex: Male Female How old are you? 20—30 31-A0 . A1-50 51-60 61 and above What is your marital status? Married . . Single Divorced. . . . . . . . Widowed . Separated How many children do you have? None One Two Three Four or more 9A. 95. 96. 21 What is your religion? Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Protestant. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 None. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? I have no religion . . . . . . . . . . 1 Not very important . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fairly important . . . . . . . . . . 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . A 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 important. . . . . . . . . . . 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . A 97. 98. 99. 22 Creditable evidence shows that the number of handi- capped persons able to benefit from college or uni- versity training is increasing. Some people feel that special services such as ramps for wheelchairs, special transportation services and other related facilities should be provided for handicapped stu— dents. What is your feeling about providing such specialized services for handicapped persons? Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . A In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? I have no religion. . . . . . . . . . l Seldom . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Sometimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Usually . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Almost always . . . . . . . . . . . 5 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? Probably not . . . . . . . . . . . 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Maybe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 100. 101. 102. 23 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 about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . A 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 something 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 right. . . . . . . . . . 1 It is probably all right. . . . . . . . 2 It is usually wrong . . . . . . . . . 3 It is always wrong. . . . . . . . . . A People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be en- couraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually it creates new jobs and raises the standard of living." Disagree strongly . . . . . . . . . . l Disagree slightly . . . . . . . . . . 2 Agree slightly . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Agree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . A 103. 10A. 105. 2A Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an important job. What is your feel- ing on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job." Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . A Some people believe that more 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 disagree . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . A Some people believe that more federal 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 disagree . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . 2 lightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . A 106. 107. 108. 109. 25 People have different ideas about planning for edu— cation in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? Answer only one. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local governmental unit . . . . . . . . 2 Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government . . . . 3 What is your professional relationship to the counseling center: Choose one that best describes you. Counselor with M. A. . . . . . . . . l Pre—doctoral intern . . . . . . . . 2 Post-doctoral intern . . . . . . . . 3 Counselor with Ph.D. . . . . . . . . A How are your responsibilities divided? Counselor-professor . . . . . . . . 1 Counselor—administrator . . . . . . . 2 Counselor-other . . . . . . . . . . 3 Counselor only . . . . . . . . . . A What percentage of your time is given to counseling students? Up to 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Up to 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Up to 75% . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Up to 100%. . . . . . . . . . . . A 26 110. What percentage of the time assigned to you in the center is spent in counseling physically handicapped persons? Little or none . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10% — 25%. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 25% - 50%. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50% - 75%. . . . . . . . . . . . . A 75% - 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 111. Are you a staff member in a rehabilitation counselor training program? Yes. 0 L1 Q C 3 O I O C Q 9 O O O 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 APPENDIX D GENERAL INFORMATION INVENTORY 132 27 GENERAL INFORMATION INVENTORY* This is an attempt to determine the amount of information you possess about handicapped persons. Choose the single best answer for each question and mark your answer by placing a heavy black mark after the corre— sponding number on the answer sheet. *Modified from N. Haring, G. Stern and W. Cruickshank, fiELEgtudes of Educators Toward Excaptional Children (Syracuse: S¥1?acuse University Press, 1958), with the express permis- Slfibn of George G. Stern. 112. 113. 11A. 115. 28 The congenital deaf person will probably display: 1. articulation errors 2. voice abnormalities 3. retarded language A. all of the above The deaf, deafened, and hard-of-hearing are different categories based mainly on: 1. degree of hearing loss 2. speech development 3. lip reading ability A amount of hearing loss and age of onset Hard-of-hearing persons usually have a decibel loss of: 1. 0-15 2 20-60 3- 70-90 A 90-100 The criticism of the manual method of teaching the deaf is that: 1. it is too difficult to learn 2. it is difficult for these pupils to communicate with hearing people 3. few teachers know the method A. it is too symbolic 116. 117. 118. 119. 29 Educating and rehabilitating the hard-of-hearing is primarily: 1. developing language 2. fitting hearing aids 3. giving audiometric tests A. teaching lip reading and speech correction and auditory training. The Oral method of teaching the deaf refers to: 1. teaching by means of speech and lip reading 2. only by auditory training 3. developing speech and language A. teaching of arithmetic and reading The criterion used for placement of a child in a class for the deaf is: 1. 2. 3. u. speech development, intelligence and hearing loss disease causing the loss and intelligence speech development alone hearing loss alone Speech correctionists in the public schools do all. of the following but one: 1. 2. ~ give speech corrections to individual children give lip reading to hard-of-hearing children instruct teachers in methods of speech correction that they can use in their regular classes teach classes for the deaf 120. 121. 122. 123. 30 Disorders of articulation refer to all of the follow- ing but one: 1. 2. 3. A. omission of sounds pitch distortion of sounds substitutions of sounds Stuttering is often the result of: 1. 2 3. A cleft palate emotional problems malformations of the teeth brain lesions With respect to chronological age, the following sounds last to be produced correctly by the child are: l. 2. 3. A. r and 1 p and b m, n, and g f and v The most common speech problem among elementary school children is: l. 2. functional articulatory problems cleft palate speech stuttering voice problems 12A. 125. 126. 127. 31 According to contemporary research which of the following is the principal etiological factor in stuttering: 1. endocrine disturbances 2. inadequate cerebral dominance 3. acquired anxiety relating to Speech fluency A. hereditary predisposition The symptom most diagnostic of stuttering is: 1. repetition of parts of words 2. prolonging vowel sounds 3. attempts to avoid non-fluencies in speech A. hesitations between words and phrases Teachers help the stuttering person most effectively by: l. 20 3. supplying him with words which he cannot say urging him to relax and speak more slowly give him as much practice as possible by calling upon him to read more often waiting for the person to finish speaking re- gardless of the difficulty he is experiencing. have the person stop and think of what he is going to say Functional nasality is usually associated with: l. 2. inadequate naso-pharyngeal closure blockage of the nasal pharynx by excessive adenoid tissue misuse of the vocal cords speaking on inspiration 128. 129. 130. 131. 32 The most important etiological factor of cerebral palsy is: 1. Rh factor 2. birth injury 3. rubella during the first trimester A. hereditary Which one of the following is not a clinical type of cerebral palsy: l. spasticity 2. athetosis 3. poliomyelitis A. rigidity The intellectual ability of cerebral-palsied persons as a group is: 1. normal 2. below normal 3. above normal A. impossible to evaluate The principal reason that severe spastics with normal intelligence are sometimes found in institutions for the feebleminded is: l. the parents do not want them around 2. they cannot be helped anyway 3. it is impossible to obtain an adequate mental test on them A. the institution has the best training facilities for them 132. 133. 13A. 135. 33 The most common clinical type of cerebral palsy is: l. ataxia 2. athetosis 3. rigidity A. spasticity Anoxia is a condition in which the brain: 1. receives insufficient oxygen 2. is underdeveloped 3. is too large A. has suffered from hemorrhage Which one of the following men is £92 noted for re- search with regard to brain injury: 1. Martin Palmer 2. W. M. Cruickshank 3. Lewis Terman A. A. A. Strauss Studies have shown that the emotional adjustment of the cerebral palsied as a group is: 1. normal 2. inadequate 3. above normal A. more adequate in spastics than athetoids 136. 137. 138. 139. 3A The emotional adjustment in the home of the cerebral palsied would be expected to be: 1. about the same as the average home 2. more stable than the average home 3. probably less stable than the average home A. extremely unstable The reaction of society as a whole toward the cerebral palsied is: l. somewhat rejecting 2. as accepting as toward the normal 3. completely accepting A. completely rejecting Poliomyelitis is caused by: 1. heredity 2. Rh negative 3. a virus A. lack of rest Epilepsy is caused by: 1. brain injury 2. seizures 3. Rh factor A. malnutrition 1A0. 1A1. 1A2. 1A3. 35 Epilepsy occurs in approximately: 1. 2. 3. A. one person one person one person one person If one of your in every 200 in every 20 in every A00 in every 10 students has an epileptic seizure you the room for help keep him from getting into a dangerous position fingers in his mouth to keep him from biting his tongue should: 1. run out of 2. 3. stick your A. rush all of the students out of the room After a student has had an epileptic seizure in your room you should: 1. 2. Tuberculosis reassure the student and calm his classmates see that a doctor is called point out to his classmates that he may be dangerous send the student home for a week in cities is more prevalent: in rural areas areas near water areas of high altitude 1AA. 1A5. 1A6. 1A7. The major debilitating factor in rheumatic fever: 1. is the weakening of the lungs 2. involvement of the heart 3. weakening of the limbs A. weakening of the eyes In young people there are many instances, parti- cularly in adolescence, of obesity which are most frequently caused by: 1. pituitary disorders 2. excessive intake of food 3. lack of activity A. rapid development The gland that has to do with the general metabolic activity is the: 1. thyroid gland 2. pituitary gland 3. lymph gland A. pancreatic gland Social and emotional maladjustment in physically handicapped persons: 1. is present in all cases 2. can be related to their mental ability 3. is dependent upon the number and severity of the problems A. is less of a problem than in normal children 1A8. 1A9. 150. 151. 37 Studies by means of interviews, observations, and reports of informants indicate that physically dis- abled persons are: 1. 2. better adjusted than normal persons as well adjusted as normal persons all maladjusted more frequently maladjusted than physically normal persons The attitudes of parents toward their disabled children tend to be: 1. oversolicitous, rejecting 2. accepting, understanding 3. the same as toward their normal children A. more positive than toward their normal children The attitude of teachers toward handicapped students 8: l. verbalized acceptance but somewhat rejecting 2. completely accepting 3. the same as toward normal students A. more understanding The attitudes of disabled persons toward themselves tend to be: 1. not significantly different from normal persons 2. negative 3. accepting A. more positive than normal persons 152. 153. 15A. 38 The plan in which the blind child is enrolled with a teacher of blind children in a Special room from which.he goes to the regular classroom for a portion of his school day is the: 1. cooperative plan 2. itinerant teacher plan 3. Dalton plan A. flexible plan The plan in which the blind child is enrolled in the regular class in his home school where his needs are met through the cooperative efforts of the regular teacher and those of the teacher who is made avail- able at certain times to offer this special service is the: 1. cooperative plan 2. itinerant teacher plan 3. Dalton plan A. integrated plan The plan in which the blind child is enrolled in the regular classroom, and has available to him and to his regular teachers a full-time qualified teacher of blind Children and also a resource room, is the: 1. itinerant teacher plan 2. cooperative plan LU integrated plan A. the sharing plan 155. 156. 157. 158. 39 An educationally blind person is one who has a visual acuity after correction of: 1. 2. 3. A. 20/70 to 20/150 20/150 to 20/200 20/20 to 20/70 20/200 or less A partially-seeing person is one who has a visual acuity after correction of: 1. 20/20 to 20/60 2. 20/70 to 20/200 3. 20/200 to 20/300 A. 20/300 or less The blind: l. have superior sensory acuity 2. pay attention to auditory cues more than do seeing people 3. develop a sixth sense A. have markedly superior musical ability The school in which the program for the education of the blind is housed should be one in which the enrollment: l. is made up of blind or partially sighted children 2. is made up of sighted Children 3. is made up of crippled children A. is made up of mentally retarded children A0 159. The realistic goal of the educational program of the blind person should be: 1. to de-emphasize the handicap to the extent that attention is focused on the person 2. to help the person forget about his blindness 3. train the person's sixth sense A. integrate the person with physically handi- capped persons 160. The most helpful attitude toward the blind person's achievement is: 1. sympathetic 2. non-sentimental 3. emotional A. narcissistic 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 poor Job? How about businessmen? Labor? The local govern- ment? The doctors and hospitals? The church? (Please choose the appropriate number to indicate how you feel each Job is being done.) Please choose one for each group. 161. Elementary Schools Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Excellent. . . . . . . . . . . . S Al The instructions on the previous page apply to sections 162-168. 162. Secondary Schools Do not know . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . A Excellent. . . . . . . . . . . 5 163. Universities Do not know . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . A Excellent. . . . . . . . . . . 5 16A. Businessmen Do not know . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . A Excellent. . . . . . . . . . . 5 A2 165. Labor Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent. 166. Local Government Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent. 167. National Government Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent. 168. Health Services (Doctors and Hospitals) Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent. 169. “3 Churches Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent. APPENDIX E LETTERS AND INSTRUCTIONS 150 151 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY For a research project now being considered at Michigan State University, we need to know the attitudes of college counselors (located in colleges with student populations of 15,000 or more) toward persons with physical handicaps. You are one of the 130 persons chosen at random; usefulness of the results will depend heavily on your willingness to participate. This research is part of a larger international study of attitudes toward handicapped persons. The purpose of the research is to study the nature and the determinants of these attitudes. At no time will your name be associated with your answers. You will always remain completely anonymous. If you are interested, a summary of the findings will be made available upon request. Thank you for your help. Dr. John E. Jordan Research Director 152 INSTRUCTIONS Enclosed are four instruments which have been numbered and arranged in such a way that all the answers can be recorded on the enclosed answer sheet. Every question has a purpose in the effort to study deter- minants of attitudes toward physically handicapped persons. Therefore, your answer to every question is important. Please mark your choice for each question clearly on the answer sheet with a number two pencil. Do not use a ball point or fountain pen. Answer each question quickly with your first reaction. After you have completed the items please discard the questionnaires and place the answer sheet in the addressed, stamped envelope. Then seal it and mail it immediately. Do not sign your name to the answer sheet as we want you to remain anonymous. The director of this research is Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Department of Counseling and Personnel Ser- vices, Michigan State University. The person handling this part of the data is Keith E. Palmerton, a doctoral student at Michigan State University. Therefore, all correspondence should be addressed to: Keith E. Palmerton c/o Dr. John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan A8823 Thank you again for your help. 153 FOLLOW—UP LETTER April, 1967 (Address) Dear On March 22, 1967, I mailed you a questionnaire con- cerned with attitudes of college counselors toward physi- cally disabled persons. I need your help if this piece of research is to be at all meaningful. This study is an honest attempt to do some pioneer work in a crucial area. The findings would be most helpful both in aiding the dis- abled college student and in developing attitude scales. Please fill out and mail the answer sheet as soon as possible. I must have your response on or before April 26. If I have not received your response before that time I will phone you to see if I can be of any assistance to you or answer any questions you may have. If you have misplaced any part of the mailing (the answer sheet, the question- naire, or the return envelope) I will be happy to replace it. Sincerely, Keith E. Palmerton c/o Dr. John E. Jordan Erickson Hall, M. S. U. East Lansing, Michigan APPENDIX E CODE BOOK 15A CODE BOOK Attitudes of College Counselors Toward Physically Disabled Persons Keith E. Palmerton Directed by John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University May 5, 1967 156 CARD 1 Column-Source Item Detail Code 1,2,3,A None—Constant 5,6,7 Student Number 8,9 None-Constant 10 None 11 Q'aire—90 12 Q'aire—Ql 13 Q'aire-92 1A Q'aire-93 15 Constant 16 Q'aire-107 17 Q'aire-108 Study Number 0020 Respondent's 001 Number Group Number 01 Deck Number 1 Sex 1 2 Age 1 2 3 u 5 Marital Status 1 2 3 A 5 Number of 1 Children 2 3 A 5 Machine 1 Role & Degree 1 2 3 A Responsibilities 1 2 3 A College Counselors in U. S. 160 Sample of 130 Counselors Male Female (20-30) (31-A0) (Al-50) (51-60) (61 and above) Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated None 1 2 3 A or more Counselor w/M.A. Pre-doctoral Intern Post—doctoral Intern Counselor w/Ph.D. Counselor-Professor Counselor-Adminis- trator Counselor-Other Counselor, only 157 CARD 1 (continued) 2 Column-Source Item Detail Code 18 Q'aire-109 Time-Counseling l - Up to 25% 2 - Up to 50% 3 - Up to 75% A - Up to 100% 19 Q'aire-llO Time-Counseling 1 - Little or none handicapped 2 - 10% — 25% 3 - 25% - 50% A - 50% - 75% 5 - 75% - 100% 20 Q'aire-lll Rehabilitation 1 - Yes Staff 2 - No 21,22 Blank 23,2A Blank 25 Card No. l - 2 or blank 26 Ed. Scale—l Content (Prog.- l - Strongly disagree Scale 1*) 2 - Disagree 3 - Agree Note: Content items or even A - Strongly agree number columns 26~6A will be coded exactly as item 26 27 Ed. Scale-2 Intensity (Prog.- 1 — Not strongly at all Scale 2*) 2 — Not very strongly L . 3 — Fairly strongly Note: IntenSity items on odd num— A - Very strongly bers 27-65 will be coded exactly as item 27 28 Ed. Scale-3 Content (P-l) 29 Ed. Scale-A Intensity (P-2) Progressive; (3) Content Traditional; *The Education Scale is broken down into four different scales of ten items each: (1) Content Progressive; (2) Intensity (A) Intensity Traditional. 158 CARD 1 (continued) Column-Source Item Detail Code 30 Ed. Scale—5 Content (T-3*) 31 Ed. Scale-6 Intensity (T—A*) 32 Ed. Scale-7 Content (T—3) 33 Ed. Scale-8 Intensity (T-A) 3A Ed. Scale-9 Content (P-l) 35 Ed. Scale-10 Intensity (P-2) 36 Ed. Scale—11 Content (T—3) 37 Ed. Scale-12 Intensity (T-A) 38 Ed. Scale—l3 Content (P-l) 39 Ed. Scale—1A Intensity (P—2) A0 Ed. Scale—l5 Content (P—l) A1 Ed. Scale—l6 Intensity (P-2) A2 Ed. Scale-17 Content (P—l) A3 Ed. Scale—l8 Intensity (P—2) AA Ed. Scale-19 Content (T-3 ) A5 Ed. Scale—20 Intensity (T-A) A6 Ed. Scale-21 Content (T—3) A7 Ed. Scale—22 Intensity (T-A) A8 Ed. Scale-23 Content (T—3) A9 Ed. Scale—2A Intensity (T—A) 50 Ed. Scale—25 Content (T-3) 51 Ed. Scale-26 Intensity (T-A) 52 Ed. Scale—27 Content (T-3) 53 Ed. Scale—28 Intensity (T-A) 159 CARD 1 (continued) A Column-Source Item Detail Code 5A Ed. Scale-29 Content (P-l) 55 Ed. Scale-30 Intensity (P-2) 56 Ed. Scale—31 Content (P—l) 57 Ed. Scale—32 Intensity (P—2) 58 Ed. Scale—33 Content (P—l) 59 Ed. Scale-3A Intensity (P-2) 60 Ed. Scale-35 Content (T—3) 61 Ed. Scale-36 Intensity (T—A) 62 Ed. Scale—37 Content (T-3) 63 Ed. Scale-38 Intensity (T—A) 6A Ed. Scale-39 Content (P-l) 65 Ed. Scale-A0 Intensity (P-2) 66 HP Scale-Al Content (Scale 5*) 1 - Strongly disagree Note: Content 3 : iéiigree items in even num- A _ Strongly agree ber columns 66-80 on card 1 and in odd number columns 27-A9 on card 2 will be coded ex- actly as item 66. 67 HP Scale-A2 Intensity (Scale 6*) Note: Intensity items in odd num- ber columns 67-79 on card 1 and in even number columns 26-50 on card 2 will be coded exactly as item 67. - Not strongly at all - Not very strongly Fairly strongly - Very strongly .1:me l *The HP Scale is divided into two scales of 20 items each: (5) H.P. Content; (6) H. P. Intensity. 160 CARD 1 (continued) Column-Source Item Detail Code 68 69 70 71 72 73 7A 75 76 77 78 79 80 HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP HP Scale-A3 Scale-AA Scale—A5 Scale-A6 Scale-A7 Scale-A8 Scale-A9 Scale-50 Scale-51 Scale—52 Scale-53 Scale-5A Scale-55 Content Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity Content (5) (6) (5) (6) (5) (6) (5) (6) (5) (6) (5) (6) (5) 161 CARD 2 6 Column-Source Item Detail Code 1,2,3,A None-constant 5,6,7 Student No. 8,9 None-constant 10 None 11 Q'aire—9O 12 Q'aire-91 13 Q'aire-92 1A Q'aire-93 15 Constant 16 Q'aire—107 l7 Q'aire-108 18 Q'aire—109 19 Q'aire-llO 20 Q'aire-lll 21,22,23,2A 25 26 HP Scale-56 27 HP Scale—57 28 HP Scale—58 29 HP Scale—59 30 HP Scale-60 Study Number 0020 - College Counselors in U. S. Respondent's No. 001 — 160 Group Number 01 - 09 Sample of 130 Counselors Deck Number 2 Sex (all columns ll-2A coded as on card 1) Age Marital Status Number of Children Machine Role & Degree Responsibilities Time-Counseling Time-Counseling Handicapped Rehabilitation Staff Intensity (6) Content (5) Intensity (6) Content (5) Intensity (5) 162 CARD 2 (continued) Column-Source Item Detail Code 31 HP Scale-61 Content 32 HP Scale-62 Intensity 33 HP Scale-63 Content 3A HP Scale-6A Intensity 35 HP Scale-65 Content 36 HP Scale-66 Intensity 37 HP Scale—67 Content 38 HP Scale-68 Intensity 39 HP Scale—69 Content A0 HP Scale—70 Intensity A1 HP Scale-71 Content A2 HP Scale-72 Intensity A3 HP Scale-73 Content AA HP Scale-7A Intensity A5 HP Scale-75 Content A6 HP Scale-76 Intensity A7 HP Scale-77 Content A8 HP Scale-78 Intensity A9 HP Sca1e~79 Content 50 HP Scale-80 Intensity 163 Column-Source 1,2,3: 5,5,7 8,9 11 5.5 26 27 28 29 A None-constant Student Number None—constant See card 1 Q'aire-81 Q'aire—82 Q'aire—83 Q'aire-8A CARD 3 8 Item Detail Code Study Number 0020 Respondent No. 001-160 Group Number 01 - Sample of 130 Counselors Contact Group 1 - Blind & parti- (Primary Contact ally blind w/HP) 2 - Deaf & parti- ally deaf 3 - Crippled, ortho- pedic, spastic, disfiguring A - Speech 5 - None Contact Group 1 - Blind & parti- (secondary con— ally blind tact w/HP) 2 — Deaf & parti— ally deaf 3 - Crippled, ortho- Contact (Varieties of HP) Contact (Amount) U'IJZ'UUNF’ UWJZ‘UUI'UH U'IL' pedic, spastic, disfiguring Speech None Read or studied Friend or relative Worked with Immediate family Self 0-9 10-A9 50-99 100-A99 SOC-above 16A CARD 3 (continued) Column—Source Item Detail Code 30 Q'aire-85 31 Q'aire-86 32 Q'aire-87 33 Q'aire-88 3A Q'aire-89 35 Q'aire—90 36 Q'aire-91 37 Q'aire-92 Contact (ease of avoidance) Contact (Gain from ) Contact (% in- come) Contact (enjoy— ment) Contact (Alternative) Sex Age Marital Status [UH .C’LA) .2:me SWMH mtwmu—I NH UOM U'l-Il’LUNH \fit‘UUlUH Great difficulty Considerable difficulty Some inconvenience No inconvenience No rewards Paid Credit Paid & credit Less than 10% 10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Dislike, great Dislike, little Like, some Definitely en- Joyed No information on alternatives None available Available but not acceptable Available but not fully acceptable Available and fully acceptable Male Female 20-30 31-A0 Al-SO 51—60 6l—above Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated 165 CARD 3 (continued) 10 Column-Source Item Detail Code 38 Q'aire-93 Number of 1 none Children 2 one 3 two A three 5 four or more 39 Q'aire-9A Religion 1 Catholic 2 Protestant 3 Jewish A None 5 Other A0 Q'aire-95 Religion 1 None (importance) 2 Not very 3 Fairly A Very A1 Q'aire-96 Feel personally 1 Not at all close to peers 2 Not very (importance) 3 Fairly A Very A2 Q'aire-97 HP at university 1 Strongly disagree (specialized 2 Slightly disagree services for) 3 Slightly agree A Strongly agree A3 Q'aire—98 Religion 1 No religion (observe rules) 2 Seldom 3 Sometimes A Usually 5 Almost always AA Q'aire-99 Health Practice 1 Probably no Change 2 No 3 Maybe A Yes A5 Q'aire-lOO Child Rearing 1 Strongly disagree Practices Change 2 Slightly disagree 3 Slightly agree A Strongly agree 166 CARD 3 (continued) 11 Column-Source Item Detail Code A6 Q'aire—lOl A7 Q'aire-102 A8 I Q'aire—103 A9 Q'aire—IOA 50 Q'aire-105 51 Q'aire-106 52 Q'aire-IO7 53 Q'aire-lOB 5A Q'aire—109 55 Q'aire-llO Birth Control Practices Automation Change Change Political Leaders Local Aid to Education Federal Aid to Education Education Planning Professional Relationship Responsibilities Time to Counseling Time Counseling Handicapped - Always right Probably all right - Usually wrong - Always wrong I—‘NUUJ: I — Disagree strongly - Disagree slightly Agree slightly - Agree strongly .1:me I - Strongly disagree - Slightly disagree Slightly agree — Strongly agree .1:me I Same — Parents - Local gov't. — National gov't. Counselor w/M.A. — Pre—doctoral Intern — Post—doctoral Intern — Counselor 2/Ph.D. DWNI—J LUMP-1 I Counselor-Professor - Counselor-Adminis- trator Counselor-Other — Counselor—only I\.) l—‘ I kw I - Up to 25% - Up to 50% to 75% — Up to 100% DUONI-J I C‘. 'U — Little or none - 10—25% 25—50% - 50-75% ~ 75-100% mil—LUMP I 167 CARD 3 (continued) 12 Column-Source Item Detail Code 56 Q'aire—lll Rehabilitation 1 - Yes Staff 2 - No 57 Q'aire—112 General : : Information 77 132 Inventory 78,79,80 None GII Score 0—A9 number of cor— rect responses on GII 168 CARD 3 l3 Column—Source Item Detail Code 1,2,3,u 5,6,7 8,9 10 11 as 26 53 5a 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 i7 None-constant Student Number None—constant None See card 1 Q'aire-l33 Q'aire—160 Q'aire-161 Q'aire—162 Q'aire—l63 Q'aire-16A Q'aire—165 Q'aire-l66 Q'aire-l67 Q'aire—l68 Q'aire—l69 Blank Blank 78,79,80 None Study Number Respondent No. Group Number Deck Number Institutional Satisfaction (Elem. Schools) (Secondary Schs.) (Universities) (Businessmen) (Labor) (Local Gov't) (National Gov't) (Health Services) (Churches) GII Score 0020 O-lbO O1 UTELURJH I Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Do not know Poor Fair Good Excellent 169 CARD 5 1A Column-Source Item Detail Code 1,2,3,A None-constant Study Number 0020 5,6,7 Student Number Respondent No. 0—160 8,9 None-constant Group Number 01 10 None Deck Number 5 11 Z See card 1 as 26,27,28 None Scale 1 Score 10-A0 29 Blank 30,31,32 None 33 Blank 3A,35.36 None 37 Blank 38,39,A0 None A1 Blank A2,A3,AA None A5 Blank A6,A7,A8 None A9 Blank 80 Blank (Ed. Prog. Cont.) Scale 2 Score 10-A0 (Ed. Prog. Int.) Scale 3 Score 10-A0 (Ed. Trad. Cont.) Scale A Score 10-A0 (Ed. Trad. Int.) Scale 5 Score 20-80 (HP Cont.) Scale 6 Score 20-80 170 FCC I and II Variable-computer print- out code form John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University Keith E. Palmerton 171 FCC I Counselors ‘1 of 3 Field Questionnaire Variable No. No. Name Column CARD 1 1 90 Sex 11 2 91 Age 12 3 92 Marital 13 A 93 Children 1A 5 107 Degree 16 6 108 Responsibilities 17 7 109 Time-Counseling 18 8 110 Time-Counseling HP 19 9 111 Rehab. Staff? 20 lO-A9 1-A0 Ed. Scale: Prog. Content, Intensity Trad. Content, Intensity 26-65 50-6A A1-55 HP Scale: HP Content-- Intensity 66-80 CARD 2 First 25 Columns SAME as CARD 1 except for Col. 10 (i.e., Deck or Card No.) 65-89 56-80 HP Scale: HP Content—- Intensity 26-50 ----- None Blank 51-80 CARD 3 First 25 Columns SAME as CARD 1 except for Col. 10 (i.e., Deck or Card No.) 90 81 Contact Group (Primary) 26 91 82 Contact Group (Secondary) 27 92 83 Contact (Variety) 28 93 8A Contact (Amount) 29 9A 85 Contact (Ease of Avoidance) 3o 95 86 Contact (Gain) 31 96 87 Contact (% Income) 32 97 88 Contact (Enjoy) 33 98 89 Contact (Alternative) 3A 172 FCC I Counselors 2 of 3 Field Questionnaire Variable Column No. No. Name 99 90 Sex 35 100 91 Age 36 101 92 Marital 37 102 93 Children 38 103 9A Religion 39 10A 95 Religion (Importance) A0 105 96 Close to Peers (Importance) A1 106 97 HP at University A2 107 98 Religion (Observe) A3 108 99 Health-Change AA 109 100 Child Rearing—Change A5 110 101 Birth Control-Change A6 111 102 Automation-Change A7 112 103 Political Leaders-Change A8 113 10A Local aid to Ed. A9 11A 105 Federal aid to Ed. 50 115 106 Ed. Planning 51 116 107 Degree 52 117 108 Responsibilities 53 118 109 Time-Counseling 5A 119 110 Time-Counseling HP 55 120 111 Rehab. Staff? 56 121 112-132 GII 57—77 CARD A First 25 Columns SAME as CARD 1 except for Col. 10 (i.e., Deck or Card No.) lA2-169 133-160 GII 26—53 170 161 Institutional Satisfaction (Elem. Schools) 5A 171 162 (Secondary Schools) 55 172 163 (Universities) 56 173 16A (Businessmen) 57 17A 165 (Labor) 58 175 166 (Local Gov't) 59 176 167 (National Gov't) 60 177 168 (Health Services) 61 178 169 (Churches) 62 173 FCC II Counselors 3 of 3 Field Questionnaire Variable No. No. Name Column CARD 3 l GII GII Score 79-80 CARD A 2 GII GII Score 79—80 CARD 5 3 Ed. Scale Prog. Cont. 27,28 A Ed. Scale Prog. Int. 31,32 5 Ed. Scale Trad. Cont. 35,36 6 Ed. Scale Trad. Int. 39,A0 7 HP Scale HP Cont. A3,AA 8 HP Scale HP Int. A7,A8