ATTITUDES TQWARI) PHYSICAL DISABILITY IN COSTA RICA AND THEIR DETERMINANTS: A PILOT SYUDY TIMI: In»: I‘M Omar» of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STM’E UNIVERSITY john Ernest ‘Falfy 1965 iESIS This is to certify that the thesis entitled Attitudes Toward Physical Disability in Costa Rica and Their Determinants: A Pilot Study presented by John Ernest F elty I has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for m degree mm // Major fliessor / Date Q 03 0-169 - _r- """' LIBRARY Michigan State 3.1 University _ .e a. ‘_~.‘_.¢.._...~u..—-- o. as firth“... .. .- : '4—_-;.n:..... V I I I ,1 ' WI are-e I I I ABSTRACT COSTA RICA AND THEIR DETERMINANTS: A PILOT STUDY by John Ernest Felty .fiitienal research into attitudes toward physical iity.1 The major research involvements centered ‘Igf three types of problems: (a) validation of the Tital conceptual framework, (b) concept equivalence In ... *cfiltural and linguistic barriers, and (0) method— Léiotudy was conducted in San Jose, Costa Rica, 5o§fii96u. A battery of four research instruments ‘atfiffl(a) attitude-toward-disabled—persons items ihgs in society: (a) rehabilitation and ugg of attitudes toward education and toward ‘ tions is in progress incountries in .’America under the direction of Dr. John E. in State University.- . ' . v .I ‘ ‘ J ”i -:L.lemé-::1--I_.A¢g .L s‘ e a.- .nvd ,..s;fl .auvvb , ..n~/ \ .r~\ an . r .- .I I. -- ‘ c...‘ IaunJ. o -. ,.'.‘ y ‘\ A x ‘\ JQHN ERNEST FELTY ,.;§, and (d) business and professional (B). The test :ggg administered to 1” groups of approximately 20 :ignta each. Administration time was approximately 70 fluent” : Jwflhe theoretical reference for hypothesis construction : : ‘ ncy. As predicted, there was a significant negative :EVg-fi: tion (partial r = -.125) between Dominance Values and ~vPelcores. Although contact frequency was not signifi— Véigggtlg positively related to ATDP scores, the R and SE group ,rhhwehigher_ATDP scores than other groups. This suggested Ignthe design limitations. Although hypothesis testing t clearly support the theoretical reference, this was ents of the attitude items would be U or r"V-" ‘ngv. «- OIL-d.— v ""7‘, \ .dh .. m 'r‘ ‘V‘ I... .1. u ..,. ax to "H ‘ 6‘ '1 ‘1-1 h in -, D.‘- g r I ._" 'hl 5“, 'Q n, \ h ‘ .,__ , . .‘o-‘ 5"- y . \I u ‘i‘ v V ‘\ . . . ’s u“ )I“ '- . s \ . . I N . . JOHN ERNEST FELTY .Qin~form. Scaling was marginal and unidimensionality ,gn; however, the predicted curvilinear relationship . I.J{§ontent and intensity was obtained. It was recom— I: that scale and intensity analysis be continued in fiflgtgng studies, but substantial revisions of the attitude ‘instruments were suggested. i.:n‘ @ther methodological problems considered were: (a) .1 ‘ ”ffifihe group-method of administration, (b) the minimum number 3 9“ "“§of'easestneeded for the required statistical analyses, and ‘;‘(e) the usefulness of the various statistical methods Employed. It was concluded that group administration is ._ib1e where random sampling and population generalization trelults are not critical. It is economical, permits the :[dtication of individual misunderstandings and concerns grespondents, and provides motivation for sustained effort. giimately 1,000 respondents are needed within each Arality for intensity analysis, with a minimum of 50 of 7 1 Within each occupational grouping to permit the ng of sex-occupation interactions. Housewives (unem— emales) would be a useful addition to the study. IAatistical techniques included analysis-of-variance, JOHN.ERNESTjFELTY ”I value, attitude, and demographic comparisons in sex-and occupational groupings. A finding hip Values--a finding consistent with reports from Vera in other countries. COPYRIGHT BY ‘JOHN. ERNEST FELTY L66 1 33.31" I‘ll“: Dirk". g . a? '3le:: 7‘ I" .7 I“ f ' ”Cassege "I d it”: A PILOT STUDY By John Ernest Felty A THESIS Submitted to :Kichigan State University urtbr the degree of him access OF PHILOSOPHY ‘College of Education 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS fanalyses, and to the College of Education for research The International Society of Rehabilitation was '.pful in arranging personal introductions in San Jose, ,lending greater credibility to the undertaking. ‘_am especially grateful to the many individuals and 'gions in Costa Rica who made this research possible. ;Schuyler Bradt, Jr., Director of the Programa ‘ icgno de Informacion Popular (PIIP), and to Dr. '§,VWaisanen, Research Director of PIIP, I am gated for technical aid, for assistance with .3 tor sound advice, and for personal support and .3941; 1-. —v~_s‘ A ,_- m’fi"—: j I g ("H 'Dr. Gonzalo Adis, Sr. Arauz, Dr. Humberto Araya Rojas, Manuel Arse, Sr. Rodolfo Campos Lopez, Dr. Gallegos, Russell Olson, Prof. Alvaro Ramirez, Dr. D. Carlos do, Sr. Rafael Angel Rojas, Mr. Valentin B. Suazo, Mr. Andrew J. Schwartz. fem also indebted to the members of the advisement ifor this dissertation: to Dr. John E. Jordan who pport and involvement beyond the call of a com— 111 3, but most of all for their willingness to exploratory project. wife, Katherine, I owe the largest debt. She ed the deprivations and rigors of graduate study .high spirit; and has accomplished the preparation of 1.1'» :2 iv_ TABLE OF CONTENTS m c INTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . , TABLES “FIGURES . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Nature of the Problem Um Statement of the Problem . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study ,REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH . General Theoretical Considerations--The Meaning of Theory as Used in This Study. Integration of Theory from Social Psych— ology with Theory and Research in Special Education and‘Rehabilitation. Relation of Research to Theory Theoretical Framework . Empirical Research from Social— Psychology , Relating the Variables of Value and 3;Personal Contact to Attitude . 7 g The Value Question . go Value Variation Among Groups. Value Variations of Special Education Groups in Latin America. . . . Attitude Intensity . . . . A. Personal Contact. . Empirical Research on Attitudes Toward j“ the Physically Disabled . ”teeneral Studies . , Gross—Cultural Studies. . . . . . . Further Cultural Studies . . . fl'Fnrther Studies Comparing Types of . Disability .". / Social Contact and Information Studies Page ii ix xii xiii m—qcna H "wwefleasurement of Attitudes ‘ General Considerations Cross-National Research and Scale Analysis . . . . . Scale Analysis . Scale and Intensity Analysis in Relation to Cross- Cultural Problems of Comparability of Response. Major Research Hypotheses. . Hypotheses Related to Scalability of Attitude Data and to Scale and Intensity Analysis . Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre— quency and Attitude Scores . Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Those Working Directly With Disabled Persons. . METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Reasons for the Selection of San Jose, Costa Rica for the Pilot Study General Description of Costa Rica . Geographic . . Economic . . . . . . Political. . . . . . . . Educational . . Special Education and Rehabilitation in Costa Rica . . . Research Population. Selection of Variables. . Attitudes Toward Physical Disability Attitudes Toward Education . The Intensity Scales Interpersonal Values . Personal Contact Variables . ' Contact with the Disabled . 7 Preferences for Personal Relationships Religiosity . . Institutional Satisfaction . . . . Demographic Variables . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . . . . Statistical Procedures. . . . Descriptive . . . . .e Scale and Intensity Analysis . . Partial Correlation . . . . Factor Analysis. . . vi Page in in 42 A4 A8 50 53 55 ”giantsxs OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . The Testing of Hypotheses. . Hypotheses Related to Scalability of Attitude Data and to Scale and Intensity Analysis . . . Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre— quency and Attitude Scores . . Hypotheses Related to Value and Attitude Scores . . Summary of Value- Attitude Variables . Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Persons Working Directly with Disabled Persons (the Rehabilitation and Special Education Group). . Summary of Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Persons Working Directly with Disabled Persons . . Characteristics of the Sample: Mean Dif- ferences Between Males and Females, and Among the Various Occupational Groupings, for Selected Attitude, Value, and Demo- graphic Characteristics . . . -Differences in Mean Attitude Scores Between Male and Female Respondents. Differences in Mean Value Scores Between Male and Female Respondents. Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Between Male and Female Respondents . Differences Between Mean Attitude Scores Among the Various Occupa— tional Groups Differences Between Mean Value Scores Among the Various Occupational Groups . . Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Among the Various Occupational Groups . . . . . . Characteristics of the Sample: Predictors of Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scores for the Total Group, Between Males and Females, and for the Various Occupational Groupings . . . . . Characteristics of the Sample: Factor Analysis of All Variables for the Total Group . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 83 83 8A 99 103 106 106 118 119 120 123 131 131 134 138 n I I , SeUSSION AND CONCLUDING SUMMARY . . . . I Discussion of Findings in Relation to the Original Objectives of the Study. . Methodological Problems in Cross- National Research. . . Technical Problems in Cross—National . Research. . . . A Discussion of the Findings from Hypothesis Testing . . . . . Summary and Discussion of the Characteristics of the Various Sub- 1, groups Analyzed in the Study . . . Concluding Summary of Recommendations . . Recommendations Concerning Instru- mentation . . . Recommendations Concerning Sampling and Administration . . . Recommendations Concerning the List , of Basic Variables and the Code Book Recommendations Concerning Statistical Analyses, Apart from Scaling . . . A Concluding Reflection on the Verifica- ,.w. tion of Hypotheses and on the Primary ”3‘ Purpose of the Dissertation . . . . viii Page 159 159 160 194 20” :32 215 219 219 220 221 223 306 LIST OF TABLES Page Scale and Intensity Analysis of Attitudes - Toward Disabled Persons . . . . . 95 [‘1 Scale and Intensity Analysis of Progressive Attitudes Toward Education . . . . . 96 \ Partial Correlation Between Frequency of Contact with Handicapped Persons and Criterion Measure (Attitude-Toward- Disabled—Persons Scores) for Rehabilita- ‘ tion and Special Education Group . . . 102 \ \ \ w \ Partial Correlations Between Selected Values and the Criterion (Attitude-Toward- ‘Disabled-Persons Scores) According to Various Groupings of Respondents . . . lON 7‘Means and Standard Deviations of Attitude— J Toward—Disabled-Persons Scores for the ~”‘Four Occupational Categories. . . . . 107 ”‘Analysis of Variance of Attitude-Toward- Disabled—Persons Scores for the Four Occupational Categories . . . . . . 108 rDuncan‘ s New Multiple Range Test Applied to *7 Means of Occupational Categories for J Attitude-Toward- -Disabled— Persons Scores . 109 3; Standard Deviations, and Mean Rankings tor Benevolence Value Scores According to ,the Four Occupational Categories . . . _” a. Standard Deivations, and Mean Rankings ~£ér Recognition Value Scores According to the Four Occupational Categories . . . », sis-of—Variance of Recognition Value ores for the Four Occupational egories. . . . . . . . . . . ix Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean Rankings for Leadership Value Scores According to the Four Occupational Categories. . . . Analysis-of—Variance of Leadership Value Scores for the Four Occupational Categories . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Applied to Means of Occupational Categories for Leadership Value Scores. . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and Mean Rankings for Progressive— —Attitude— Toward-Education Scores According to the Four Occupational Categories . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Respondents According to Sex and Occupational Characteristics. . . Comparisons of Mean Differences, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect to Three Attitude Variables, for 123 Males and 194 Females . . . . ‘. . . Comparison of Mean Differences, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect to Six Value Variables, for 123 Males and 1““ Females . . . . . . . . Sex Difference Scores on Various National Groups on Sub- Scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon 1963) . . . '~Comparisons of Mean Differences, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect to Three Demographic Variables, for 123 Males and luh Females . . . . . . . {A Interpretation of Education Scores in Terms ‘* of Actual Educational Attainment. . . . LInterpretation of Income Scores in Terms of Colones and of Dollars . . . . . . . mparison of Mean Differences, Standard Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect {éto Three Value Variables, for Four Occupational Categories. . . . . . . Page 113 113 115 116 119 120 122 12“ 126 127 130 132 Page ‘ Deviations, and F Statistics in Respect to Three Demographic Variables and Four Occupational Categories . . . . . 135 E"‘§u1tip1e and Partial Correlations Between “"Tflelected Predictors and the Criteria (ATDP Scores) for Total Group and Sex. . 139 Multiple and Partial Correlations Between 1m VSelected Predictors and the Criteria ” '(ATDP Scores for Educators, Rehabilita- “tion and Special Education People, Laborers and Secretaries, and Professionals. . . . . . . . . . 1&2 Factor Analyses for 29 Selected Variables for the Total Group. . . . lu6 Selected Variable—Factor Correlations of Primary Importance in Defining Factor Dimensions, Listed in Order of Declining Magnitude . . . 147 A Comparison of Intercorrelations Between “' Interpersonal Values Reported by Gordon, and Intercorrelations Between Inter- 'personal Values Obtained ih Costa Rica . 153 xi 1 l LIST OF FIGURES Seven-item Scale of Attitudes-Toward— Disabled-Persons, in Order of Least- to- Most Favorable, as Developed through MSA Analysis . . . . . Three-item Scale of Attitudes-Toward— Disabled—Persons, in Order of Least- to- Most Favorable, as Developed through MSA Analysis . . . . . . . Six-item Scale of Progressive-Attitudes- Toward-Education in Order of Most- to- Least Agreement Scores, as Developed through MSA Analysis . . . . . . Scale and Intensity Analysis of Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons in San Jose, Costa Rica. . . . . Scale and Intensity Analysis of Progressive Attitudes Toward Education in San Jose, Costa Rica. . ~._Levels, Component Composition, and Component Labels for a Six-component Universe of Intergroup Attitudes _ Hypothetical Correlation Matrix Illustrating Expected Simplex Ordering. . . . . 'jteeling Matrix for Component V . . A. . . 'xii Page 87 88 93 97 98 176 177 179 Table 29. Table 30. Table 31. Table 32. Table 33. Table 3A. Table 35. Table 36. Table 37. LIST OF APPENDICES Statistical Material . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations Zero-Order Correlations Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for the Total Group . . . . Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for Subgroups of Male and Female. Means and Standard Deviations of Criterion Variables for Occupational Groupings. . . Matrix of O-order Correlations for All Variables of the Study . . . . . Matrix of O-order Correlations for Males . . . . . . Matrix of O—order Correlations for Females . . . . . Matrix of O-order Correlations for Educators. . . . . . Matrix of O-order Correlations for Rehabilitation and Special Education Group . . Matrix of O-order Correlations for Low Income Group . . . Q Table 38. Matrix of O-order Correlations . for Business and Professional Group . . . . . . . .onal Questionnaire . . . . . . . xiii Page 22” 225 226 227 228 . 229 230 231 Page nitude Scales for Physical Disability Ind Education with Accompanying Operational Definitions of Physical Disability . . . . . . . . 249 ‘rdon Survey of Interpersonal Values . . . 265 Sasic Variables, Code Book, and * Transcription Sheets. . . . . . . . 267 Basic Variables . . . . . . . . 268 Code Book. . . . . . . . 272 Transcription Sheets . . . . . . . 295 a« . ‘ LSample Items for an Instrument for l .Measuring Attitudes Toward Disabled .— I People, Based on Facet Analysis . . . . 297 ‘ CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Nature of the ProbIJem Physical disability is a problem of increasing concern. v (ideal advances, and their dissemination throughout the ifirld via public health agencies, have markedly reduced death t'as (Davis, 1963). A major consequence is an increase in .158; .number of children with physical disabilities who in 1",; 'Ievieus years would have died in infancy (Myerson, 1963, 1. 2, 3). Yet in many underdeveloped countries, special cation and rehabilitation programs are recent innovations. Alas a concept or goal in many Latin American countries, ’9 the institutional complex. There are innovators meent and expansion, there is a great need for Ba:- communication about attitudes and programs among "figéudation and rehabilitation. This was considered the fore- , .‘. .51; cross-national research need by the research group of «the Second International Seminar on Special Education at “berg, Denmark, in July, 1963. Such data is indispensible ‘. ‘a- coherent approach to international cooperation in a gin a culture, and of the characteristics and orienta— 118 of those who are most accepting and sympathetic Srd such program developments. s However, there are few ready guidelines for conducting h research. A comprehensive cross-national research 7 Vaimed at uncovering similarities and differences in _1e within an unfamiliar culture and social system, V Imake it comparable from one cultural and/or linquistic :VIto-another. Such a study should also have an Iiywithin the various countries involved. This theory .A *hy_a practical and humanistic concern over the Agpe,of persons with disabilities, rather than the Effication of a theoretical problem, it was considered ggpsary to find a theoretical framework to which the lugen could be fitted. Physically disabled persons con- Into an identifiable sub-group in society. Consequently, Itonable orientation is that which deals with inter- ~ attitudes. Because the study was projected as a V, such interesting problems as attitude change and :ction of behavior, which involve measurement over time, .y1: ‘fi" bm1tted. The main focus of study is concerned with is: first, that of "getting along" in another country, 1_¥ationships with those interested and willing to help J{:£hjthe research, making contacts for the administration 5;! questionnaires, selecting samples, reproducing material, figtaying healthy, and a host of other considerations, large :Snd small. Second, the problem of scoring, organizing, jgfind processing the data in ways which are general enough .'to be useful and comparable for a variety of cultural *aalyses. Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study is to investigate technical, jDedological, and theoretical considerations relating to ‘ZYSically handicapped persons. The investigation is con— Ved as a pilot study. Specifically, an attempt will be into employ a set of instruments which will elicit Vserve either as correlates or predictors. A final iflmhase in one society (or linguistic group) who hold favor— qyfible, neutral, or unfavorable attitudes. Thus, one problem ‘fis.te determine whether the attitudinal instrument :ébessesses the desirable scale properties. i”- Social—psychological theory states that values are ?:important determinants of attitudes. In respect to physi- *Jgeally disabled persons, it has been suggested that persons itiflhe generally value others as having intrinsic worth are ‘Kéyzkely to hold more favorable attitudes toward the disabled zizfifljan are those who value others according to more absolute Eyfihmparative standards. A second problem, therefore, is to capts of attitudes. Another problem, then, is to deter- Scores . aStill another purpose of the study is the parsimonious a Rica. It was possible to gather various kinds of gified by the main hypotheses of the study. Modern ‘wuter analysis techniques make it possible to eXploit I nhfikerrelationships among diverse data of this sort in ways ‘nmich may provide subsequent researchers with suggestive ’ lationships and may even suggest subsequent research pre— g.;;§ictiens. . }217 The pilot study is not in itself a cross— —national ’ apesearch project, as it was conducted entirely in San Jose, . égqgta Rica.l It is rather a pilot research project in fifihgther and divergent culture. However, the purposes lfiated above are all instrumental to the subsequent develop- .,mt of a cross—national research program in education at 43101113811 State University,2 and toward. the major purpose of .—:; fviding guideposts to a research domain which as yet has . little explored. This domain should ultimately yield .h.data of both applied and theoretical significance. lPre- test data was gathered in Lansing, Michigan, but sequent modifications and refinements of instrumentation, is ‘1 e of Education at Michigan State University._ Data 1 “he collected in several nations in Latin America, , ' can Asia, and Europe as well as in the United States. fi follows the definition by Guttman (1950, p. 51). ivigstitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with I ngt to something. [Author's italics.] For example, Quttitude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be 'tofiality of acts that a person has performed with respect fiflgroes." The use of this definition is also consistent Vthe attempt to use some of Guttman's concepts in respect we.and intensity analysis. 'lyunosenberg, 1960, pp. 320, ff; Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9). ~73ity, although Guttman defines additional compon- leording to certain mathematical properties. In ly, the first component will be that of item content f), the second that of item intensity (cf. Guttman, .~@; Suchman, 1950, Ch. 7). ‘ Bade Content.--The attitude content component he.actual item statements Within an attitude :ygents. A set of items can be said to form a scale :eggh‘person's responses to each item can be reproduced 6 the knowledge of his total score on the test within {‘able limits of error (e.g., Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3; her, 1950, Ch. 1). ions. Data on these demographic variables were Lgducational Pro ressivism.--A ten—item scale of pro— “ih\ Educational Traditionalism.——A ten—item scale of 'ki;aditional attitudes toward education developed by .lgsriinger (1958). These two educational measures do not :égflStitute scales as defined for the present study, but :pather are made up of two independent clusters of items ffiflmich appeared in Kerlinger's factor analytic studies, and '{357ich Kerlinger characterized by the terms progressivism 3:121 traditionalism. 'Eili.. Handicap.-—This term signifies the social disadvantage {%€igaced upon a physically impaired person by virtue of the % :airment. A handicap is a consequence of culturally held fines and attitudes which serve to define the physically ired person socially. i'rImpairment.——This term signifies a defect in tissue .body structure. As such it has no particular social ‘nstitutions were doing their job in the community. stitutions were schools, business, labor, govern— alth services, and churches. 10 ongghQOT-Interest Group.-—Any group that, on the basis of one WW, . ;Tfi9re shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other 3 fiwoups in the society to engage in particular forms of ‘2d3béhavior. Associational interest groups work as collectivi- .I'A$ies to exert influence (e.g., Almond and Coleman, 1960). J.L‘ Occupational Personalism. This term is operationally ‘defined by two questionnaire items designed to ascertain: [tu*f1rst, about what per cent of the time people work with ”f'ffithers with whom they feel personally involved, second, ifl.¢hew important it is to work with people with whom one is =)g'persenally involved. A personalistic orientation to life D‘tis sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic hi 4!? traditional social patterns (e. g. , Loomis, 1960). :XE" : Physical Disability. -—This is a functional term ihsnoting some loss of the tool function of the body. An 7oproximate synonym is "physically incapacitated, " and the i ylish version of the scale the term "handicapped" was 8 since this appeared to be a more meaningful terminology i the Lansing, Michigan pre-test groups. E TVVRehabilitation.-—A term signifying "restoration of the bled to the fullest physical, mental, social, and voca- usefulness possible" (Jordan, 1964a). Relational Diffusion. This term is operationally ll u} fffiérson's non-job social milieu. A personalistic diffusion fu’EESWeen»the social milieu and occupational milieu is some- '1 fi'times considered as a distinguishing characteristic of .hi‘traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960). Religiosity.--A term used to denote orientation to (‘9 religion. operationally, it is defined by two items: 3 .u'r,f1rst, the importance of religion, second, the extent to IO‘ »:"Which the rules and regulations of the church are followed. Special Education.-—Following Kirk (1962, p. 29) this term characterizes educational practices "that are unique, 'I aluicommon, of unusual quality, and in particular are in . '5‘, gauidition to the organizational and instructional procedures Vused with the majority of children. " Jordan (1964a, p. 1) Value.--According to Kluckholn (in Parsons and Shils, . ’ 9E1, p. “11), "a value-orientation may be defined as a ) ;nature, of man's place in it, of man's relation to man, sub-set of "man's relation to man," or, interpersonal Two interpersonal value categories were adopted. set values predispose a person to evaluate others 1‘ J ..\ ._. .‘~ l2 ifing to their own unique potentials and characteristics. . tarding to external criteria of success and achievement )‘wgl.ight, 1960, pp. 12 —l33). Operationally, these values 'ihgfire defined by three scales on the Survey of Interpersonal ”fiffialues (Gordon, 1960). Asset values were measured by the ('1 ‘g'u;fienevolence Scale, comparative values by the Recognition uwu“ - and Leadership Scales. These scales were judged by the ? ‘hvestigator to have reasonable face validity for the ‘Wiifimasurement of the values proposed by Wright. Additional ngffiariables measured by the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal 'Fgffilues, but which were not used for hypothesis testing, 25S=re those of Support, Conformity, and Independence. For fibre detailed discussion of the value selection rationale, Limitations of the Study1 The limitations of a study should be considered in I light of its objectives. Four major objectives were 'fissed: one, to develop, explore, and refine a set of iques for subsequent research of a cross—national he the study as well as those learned during the ”-and data analysis. l3 :8’hetween scores on the attitude instrument and scores (y; ‘”9 other variables such as educational attitudes, inter— oj -L fijEC‘F¥rBOnal values, and personal contact; and four, to gather .and —interpret a maximum amount of additional data for ' v .1 .7!" ..O' 7 M' 5§§eculative analysis and research program development. .3} . }i ‘ Limitations in the refinement of technique were ." w 1 éiossly related to the relatively brief time available for if? «study in Costa Rica. To illustrate, one entire instrument, §--modification of the self—anchoring scale (Kilpatrick and .zyigantril’ 1960), proved too complex and time— consuming in :fghe Spanish translation, and had to be discarded for lack .time to construct and test a simpler version. 1 The usual sampling procedures were omitted because of ‘sures of time and cost. Data was secured from known I'ups (described in Chapter IV), in group administrations, ”tan expeditious manner. Further, it was not possible to to eXpedite processing of data, in the time expectancies ‘ing hazards encountered in the translation of nts, and in various other ways. ‘5. go. 1N ime pressures. In particular, a thorough testing of ginstruments in Spanish before going to Costa Rica ; fiphysical disability. The need for further evaluation and 'jglggvision of this instrument seems likely. Of the 20 items -- 9Q the original instrument, only 7 appear to have the “Sirable scale properties described by Guttman (1950) and ‘: Lpreducibility of these 7 items is minimal. A replication the study with the derived 7—item scale would appear ‘3 1. .4 £1 §§.ential before this particular methodological approach ”fibe completely assessed. In respect to methodological itional patterns. Under limitations of the testing lama ' ”fi- ~46; El 44 . A .. . .A -_ A .co-‘ v . \" .a--~ - . v ' .-.-.. .4 ...~- _..,- ...~‘ 1 H‘. » 7...... - l‘l -. .. «M ..4“ 5F. \ . a u q 15 iflifififiility it is necessary to retest on a large sample of :J fifispendents, even though the pre-test may show a relatively .éihigh reproducibility coefficient. The marginal reproduci- ’:#§fility obtained for selected scale items in the present ifflstfiay suggests that even this beginning criterion has not .5. . been adequately satisfied, reinforcing the suggestions 7mg of hypotheses relating to it. The reliability of 'education scale "predictors" analyzed by the same :In respect to the validity of the criterion measure r‘ two educational attitude measures, Guttman (1950, _ w A- .'-” 4)... J‘- o“ ." e.- 1.- .‘v‘ ...‘ a '-', ‘_ leggion of empirical prediction; i.e., of correlated indi— iijggégtors. Ebel would appear to partially concur with this .‘iflififlEnt of view, or at least to support the position that . intercorrelations among test scores contribute to estimates ‘yfi.;o£-validity, because knowing these various relationships .IlEadds to the meaningfulness of the scores from each test" ? iEbel, 1961, p. 242). It would appear that the approach ‘r 5‘f9_ validity in the present study must rest with the analysis “3‘99: intercorrelated test measures of the full battery of “2 feats. If the hypotheses are supported, this will contri- 1it§ to the construct validity of the measuring devices. ;a lesser degree, but with a similar rationale, an exam- ;tion of those relationships which appear, but which were :predicted in advance, may add to the validity of igular measurements. However, this latter procedure §es a degree of hindsight. Logical and meaningful ~isnships may often be found in retrospect which are M a“ 4—} i 63-. ‘4 a 75’: .s -e—g. m_-’r_ . ~v‘ V- ,.u-- .1.' ‘fltext 6f interpersonal contact, value organization, :seeial norm, or role behavior, as determined by perceptions “I". V .7 -’ .pfinthe subjects. I it; ‘ The relationship of this frame of reference to physical Elg’fdisability is well advanced by Levine. After suggesting ‘Y Ifithat disability is not a thing in itself but a social value These values relate to society's perception of leadership, contributions toward improving society, being a good citizen, being a family head and other essential aspects for maintaining a society. These values are criteria against which behavior is assessed in terms of deviation. All members of society, whether handicapped or not, are evaluated primarily by these values. Where an individual cannot meet these demands, or where nthere are questions as to the adequacy of the ‘ individual in relation to these demands, there will be some devaluation of him on societies part A(Levine, 1961, p. 84). - Expressed in more general terms, Levine has suggested Tue, and attitude. "'Being a family head' and 'being a "d citizen' are two ofmany roles which are generally ‘ % t>to be of XélEE in maintaining society" (Levine, 1961, .:)- Role may be partly conceived as a "contribution to 7 hintenance of the social system."1 22 .Jed by others to the extent that they are perceived iting these role obligations. Levine has suggested 1; fiéfiial contributions (p. 8”). In terms of role, it might ' “A" l I flrstated that persons with some defining characteristic, bategorized according to how others perceive them to . ifiintain certain valued social roles. Empirical Research from Social-Psychology Relating the Variables of Vaer and" Personal Contact to Attitude That values are very important sources of prejudice, .“negative stereotype is attested to by Allport (1958). ,qgnsity to prejudice. This propensity lies in his fand natural tendency to form generalizations, con- eategories, whose content represents an oversimplifi- pf his world of experience" (p. 26). "One type of ”3&35555i g-w ‘i—U' .1' 1-..». 'IZ‘XEITCQP-gg‘g S 0 ‘bee: u.,'_‘ -. —... 23 Another approach relating attitude to value is expressed by Katz (1960, pp. 173-175) in which attitudes are considered to have a "value-expressive function" (p. 173). They confirm and clarify to others and to the person himself those things most important and central to his image. Katz subsequently discusses the relatedness of attitude to value in terms of attitude change, pointing out that "people are much less likely to find their values uncongenial than they are to find some of their attitudes inappropriate to their values” (p. 189). Thus, consistency between basic values ("equality") and more specific atti— tudes (e.g., "favorableness toward opportunities for disabled persons") would be expected, as persons would be generally more inclined to change or give up attitudes inconsistent or unrelated to central values. Rosenberg (1956, 1960) has demonstrated an instrumental relationship between attitude and value, with stable positive attitudes perceived as instrumental to positive value attain— ment and the blocking of negative values, whereas stable negative attitudes were perceived as instrumental to nega- tive value attainment and the blocking of positive values. "The individual tends to relate positive attitude objects to goal attainment [high valued goals] and negative attitude objects to frustration of his goal orientation" (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 321). Moderate attitudes (as compared to intense .u 2H ones) were related to (a) less important values, or (b) in the case of important values, the perceived instrumentality of the attitude to value attainment was unclear to the subject. Rosenberg's analysis enabled him to broaden the con— cept of attitude to include both the positive-negative affective component and the belief component. Typically, attitudes have been concerned with the former, and beliefs considered separately; e.g., Allport (1958, pp. 12—13) in considering prejudice, states: "There must be an attitude of favor or disfavor; and it must be related to an over- generalized (and therefore erroneous) belief." Osgood (1957, p. 190) has restricted "attitude" to mean "the eval— uative dimension of the total semantic space.” In support of Rosenberg's position is his own research (1956) and that of Cartwright (19A9), Smith (1949), and Woodruff and DiVesta (1998). Guttman (1950) has also pre- ferred a broad concept of attitude, though on primarily logical rather than experimental grounds. A study by Carlson (1956) involved changes in pre— judicial attitudes (including affective and belief compon— ents) toward Negro mobility according to perceived instru— mentality to a value involving property valuation. Attitudes became more favorable toward Negro movement into white neighborhoods as subjects' beliefs were changed from the View that Negroes tend to lower property values, to the 25 View that Negroes tend to raise property values. The change was ascribed to an inconsistency between the cogni- tive (belief) component and the affective value component. Further research discussed by Rosenberg (1960, pp. 325-330) involved hypnosis and post—hypnotic suggestion in respect to changing either belief or affective components and measuring related changes. While his conclusions were concerned primarily with attitude structure and change, they also support the previously discussed research sug- gesting that the instrumentality of a belief to a valued goal is associated with a corresponding and direction- related affective component. Value Variation Among Groups Values may vary among groups and societies. That is to say, groups and societies vary in the type of role behavior perceived to be most important (e.g., Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck, 1961; Morris, 1956). Classical sociolog- ical and typological formulations of societies are often stated in terms of value orientations as well as in terms of social structure. These are summarized by Loomis (1960) and Becker (1950), and form an important part of Parsons' pattern variables (Parsons and ShilS, 1951, pp. 53-110). For our purposes three types of societies may be considered: the traditional, the transitional, and the modern, these terms representing sections along a continuum of .51.. ..h-‘ m‘lv. .‘,.,.. a..-” p...,. .v...‘ .- . ;\ ’- n. ,. n.‘ Y / ,. 4 \ 1 e (I! \ . ‘ 'x. .. '\ ‘;‘ "d I‘ . _. s. 26 modernization. Those persons in a modern society are represented as holding values that are more affectively neutral, achievement oriented, change oriented, more materialistic and instrumental, more universalistic, etc. than those in a traditional society. Applying this to research considerations to be discussed more completely later, Latin American society has been described typically as traditional or transitional, and the United States as a modern society (e.g., Williams, 1963, pp. 415—470; Parsons and White, 1961; Loomis, 1961; Almond, 1960). In respect to physical disability, previous consid- erations would lead to the inference that group and societal value orientations should be associated with variations in attitudes toward particular disability groups. Those with a particular value orientation would be expected to evaluate disability groups differently depending upon the perception of the relative ability of the disability groups to fulfill valued role requirements. Value Variations of Special Education Groups in Latin America Jordan (1963) has suggested that in Latin America, those persons actively engaged in the areas of rehabilita— tion and special education differ in values from the majority. In discussing these differences, he has drawn on the work of Almond and Coleman (1960) in the characteri- zation of various types of groups and associations in .. .. u... ..,. ....‘ 27 society, and also on the work of Rogers (1962) and Katz, et a1. (1963) in the characteristics and process of innovation diffusion. Both Rogers, and Almond and Coleman, have drawn on the sociological typologies referred to in the previous section. No attempt will be made here to summarize this vast literature, or the detailed analysis underlying the conclusions. However, Jordan has hypothesized that rehabili— tation and special education groups in Latin America are characterized by modern social values of "democracy, con- stitutionalism, humanism, the scientific process and universal suffrage" (p. 17) and, more generally, by ”Speci— ficity, universalism, achievement, and affective neutrality” (1963). A second conceptual value framework should also be mentioned for the suggestions it offers in respect to dominant value characteristics as specifically related to attitudes toward physical disability. Values can be clustered according to whether they are derived from (a) comparisons or from (b) intrinsic assets (Dembo, Leviton, Wright, 1956; Wright, 1960). If the evaluation is based on comparison with a standard, the person is said to be invoking comparative values. . . . 0n the other hand, if the evaluation arises from the qualities inherent in the object of judgment itself, the person is said to be invoking asset values. What matters is the object of judgment in a setting that has its own intrinsic purposes and demands. The person's reaction is then based upon how appropriately the situational demands are fulfilled rather than on comparison with a predetermined standard (Wright, 1960, p. 129). 28 Some situations require comparative evaluations, such as requirements for a particular type of job. In other situations, however, the asset minded person may be able to evaluate the disabled person for his own unique character— istics as a human being. Wright remarks: ”This analysis may arouse skepticism. But incredulity shades into under— standing when one considers that walking in itself is always a remarkable achievement” (p. 130). One might even argue that the whole concept of rehabilitation and special education (taken apart from the economic argument that in the long run education and training are cheaper that public support) is a response to the asset values of a society, which is the direct antithesis of a society where educational Opportunity is based on some comparative standard, either in respect to hereditary standards (comparison with the past) or to achievement standards (comparison with present norms). A reasonable inference from the asset—comparative value framework, is that those persons working in the field of rehabilitation and special education would be expected to hold higher asset values than those working in other occupations, regardless of whether the social system was modern or traditional. Attitude Intensity Rosenberg has considered the intensity component of an attitude as an action predictor (1960, p. 336). Carlson (1956, p. 259) found initial intense attitudes much more 29 resistant to change than moderately held attitudes. Guttman and Foa (1951) have shown that intensity is related to amount of social contact with the attitude object. Research has also suggested that intensity is an important component of internal attitude structure, determining the "zero point" of a scale that discriminates the psychologically "true" positive from negative attitude direction. This may or may not be the same as the actual scale numbers (Guttman, 1997, 1950, 1954; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman, 1947; Suchman and Guttman, 1947; Suchman, 1950; Foa, 1950; Edwards, 1958). Considering the question of relationships between attitude and action, Rosenberg states In the face of . . . [a] limitation in present knowl- edge, what is usually done is to follow a theoretical rule of thumb to the effect that the "stronger" the attitude, the more likely it will be that the subject will take consistent action toward the attitude object the more extreme (and thus, following Suchman, the more intense) the attitude, the stronger must be the action—opposing forces for the action to fail to occur in the particular attitude—eliciting situation in which those forces are operative . . . improvement in the validity of estimates of attitude intensity will increase the likelihood of successful prediction (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 336). In summary, intensity has been established as an important attitude component, increasing predictability. It apparently varies both with related value intensity (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 321) and with amount of contact (Foa, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951). 30 In addition, attitude intensity has another important function, related to the scale itself, of locating the "true' zero-point of a scale in which the area of content has been found to be scalable (e.g., Guttman, 1947). Locating a true zero-point appears to have the highly desirable characteris- tic of elimination of question bias (Foa, 1950; Suchman and Guttman, 1947; Guttman, 1954b), which often confounds cross- lingual studies. That is, the location of a true zero—point on a scale makes it possible to compare responses between different language groups without further concern for ques- tion wording (Guttman, 1959a). A final utility of intensity analysis is to reduce error (Guttman and Suchman, 1947; Foa, 1950) caused by habitual over or understatement of feelings. However, Foa (1950) has shown that it is not usually nec- essary to take this factor into consideration. Personal Contact Homans (1950, p. 112) has suggested the general rela- tionship that the more frequent the contact between persons or groups, the more favorable the attitude. The converse was also held to be true. Allport (1958, pp. 250—268) devoted a chapter to re— search on various kinds of intergroup contact. He concluded that "equal status contact" creates more favorable attitudes when the contact is in pursuit of common goals (p. 267). Casual contact is unpredictable in effects, but may serve to reinforce adverse stereotypes (p. 252). Status was also 1 31 found to be significant. In studies of attitudes toward Negroes, those having contact with high status or high occupational group Negroes held more favorable attitudes than those having contact with lower status Negroes (pp. 254, 261-262). Jacobson, gt _1. (1960, pp. 210—213) considered research related to intergroup contact, particularly between cultures. He suggested that equal status contacts (as dis- cussed by Allport, above) are more likely to develop friction (i.e., result in unfavorable attitudes) if the basis of the status equality is unsure; i.e., if one group does not fully accept the equality which is felt by the other group. Zetterberg (1963, p. 13) has reviewed social contact considerations of Malawski in which the effects of frequency of social contact on liking or disliking are dependent on two other variables: "cost of avoiding interaction, and availability of alternative rewards . . . if the costs of avoiding interaction are low, and if there are available alternative sources of reward, the more frequent the inter- action, the greater the mutual liking." From the reference point of the actor these propositions seem related to per- ceived freedoms or constraints to interact with another, and to his valuations and selection of this interaction over other activities perceived as rewarding. The foregoing might be summarized as follows: frequent contact with a person or group is likely to lead to more 32 favorable attitudes, if: 1. the contact is between status equals in pursuit of common goals (Allport, p. 267), 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. 25H, 261—262), A. if the contact is among status equals and the basis of status is unquestioned (Jacobson, gt _l. 1960, pp. 210—213), 5. if the contact is volitional (as reinterpreted from Zetterburg, 1963, p. 13), 6. if the contact is selected over other rewards (as reinterpreted from Zetterburg, 1963, p. 13). Empirical Research on Attitudes Toward the Physically Disabled As yet, there are no studies known to the author that deal directly with the problem of cross—national attitude studies in relation to disabled persons. A number of studies have considered attitudes toward specific kinds of physical impairment in specific settings in the United States. These have been reviewed in Barker, gt _t. (1953), Wright (1960), Cruicksbank (1955, 1963) and in other general reference works. Only those studies relevant to the present discussion will be considered. 33 General Studies Barker and Wright (1955) found that verbalized atti- tudes towards disabled persons were usually midly favorable, though a minority expressed negative attitudes. Barker, gt gt. (1953) attempted an analysis of atti— tudes toward disabled persons expressed in religion, fiction and humor (pp. 74—76). Religious and literary analyses revealed considerable variation in attitude. However, they found a strong tendency for jokes to be depreciating, much more so than jokes about farmers and salesmen, for examples. This would be consistent with the observations of Barker and Wright (1955) that with some persons unfavorable atti— tudes toward disability were masked. Jokes might provide a disguised outlet for these unfavorable feelings. Social Contact and Information Studies Roeher (1959) found that both social contact and increased factual information lead to increased acceptance and tolerance of disabled persons. Haring, gt _l. (1958) found that workshop attempts to modify teacher attitudes (both verbal and behavioral) toward disabled children were more effective where teachers main- tained regular contact with these children. This suggests a possible interaction between information and contact in relation to attitude toward a subordinate group, provided the information requires a change in beliefs. "From the reaction of those teachers who had few opportunities for 3“ actual experiences with exceptional children, it appears that the threat of having to modify behavior is more anxiety— producing than the real process of change itself" (Op. cit., p. 130). The effort of a formal attempt to modify attitudes, whether through mass media or a workshop, seems only to increase the anxiety and to provide a specific focus for the expression of rejection and the develop- ment of organized resistance. When specific experi- ences are provided, the actual problems that arise can be dealt with directly" (p. 131). Cross-Cultural Studies Two anthropological surveys dealt with primitive or non-occidental attitudes (or practices) in respect to dis- abled persons. Wright (1960, pp. 253-256) sampled material drawn together by Maisel in an extensive survey of anthropo— logical records, revealing wide discrepancy in the treatment of disabled persons, although "there is no doubt that negative attitudes would show a preponderance" (p. 255). Hanks and Hanks (1998) attempted a more systematic analysis (though not as comprehensive) in an attempt to determine relationships between structural and functional characteristics of a few non—occidental societies and treatment of the physically disabled. No particular rationale was given for the selection of a particular culture and analysis appeared to stem mainly from various anthropo- logical writings of others. They offered three possible hypotheses for future investigation. The physically disabled 35 are better protected and may participate more in societies where: (a) the level of productivity is higher in propor— tion to the population and its distribution more nearly equal, (b) competitive factors in individual or group achievement are minimized, and (c) the criteria of achieve— ment are less formally absolute as in hierarchical social structures and more weighted with "concern for individual capacity, as in democratic social structures" (pp. 19—20). In spite of the frequent references to the Hanks and Hanks study (Barker, gt _l. 1953; Wright, 1960; Roeher, 1961; Cruickshank, 1955, 1963, among others) there have been no apparent attempts to deal empirically with the implica- tions that particular relationships exist between concern for, and acceptance of disability on the one hand, and particular societal value organization or social-structural characteristics on the other. Further Cultural Studies Two studies done by the same group of researchers (Richardson, gt gt. 1961; and Goodman, gt _t. 1963) investi- gated uniformity and cultural variability of preference rankings of pictures of kinds of physical deviation. All samples were from the United States but included both dis- abled and non—disabled subjects and various ethnic and social class groupings. The first study revealed "remarkable uniformity in the hierarchy of preferences which the children a u. a 36 exhibited for children pictured with and without various visible physical handicaps" (p. 246). Slight sex varia- tions were found, in that girls tended to deprecate children with more "social" impairments, where boys seemed more concerned about ”functional” impairments. Children with a Puerto Rican background also reversed one rank from the other children, in a ranking of 6 groups. The follow— ing preference rankings were obtained with great uniformity, in order of preference: Rank 1. — A child with no physical handicap Rank 2. - A child with crutches and a brace on the left leg Rank 3. — A child sitting in a wheelchair with a blanket covering both legs Rank U. — A child with the left hand missing Rank 5. — A child with a facial disfigurement on the left side Rank 6. — An obese child These rankings were felt to reflect a culture value pattern with social impairment or proximity of impairment to face underlying the ordering. The second study concerned itself with the acquisition of this "value pattern" as something acquired largely in the absence of direct contact with disabled persons, and as having an implicit character communicated from parents to adults without explicit rules or awareness. To test this hypothesis, groups were studied who were judged to come 37 from subcultures with different value organizations in relation to visible impairments. These groups were Jewish and Italian (chosen because of hypothesized variant values for facial characteristics and body weight), and retarded and emotionally disturbed (chosen because of hypothesized inadequate or distorted internalization of social norms). Both children and adults were studied. Results showed that: (a) adults showed the same preference pattern as the dominant children's pattern, (b) the Jewish children did give higher ranking to both facially disfigured and obese than others, and (c) both retarded and disturbed children gave deviant patterns. The evidence suggests that cultural values in respect to disability are related to cultural uniformity, particularly in respect to physical appearance in general. Peeple who deviate from the cultural norm in terms of value orientation might be expected to deviate also in appraisal of the physically disabled. Further Studies Cogparing types of Disability Studies by Kvaraceus (1956), Bodt (1957), Force (1956), Dickstein and Dripps (1958), Haring, gt gt. (1958), and Murphy (1960) consider preferences for different disability groupings in various specific situations. Kvaraceus, Bodt, Dickstein and Dripps and Murphy, all studied preference for teaching particular groups over others by means of group 38 rankings. In general, the gifted were most preferred while mentally handicapped and maladjusted children were least preferred. Physically disabled children were in between. Bodt found that in general physically disabled children were personally accepted as playmates for respondent's children, whereas mentally retarded and disturbed children were not. Dickstein and Dripps, and Murphy, found that where people have an educational specialty (e.g., such as speech therapist), children with a related disorder (e.g., with speech pathology) are most preferred as a student group. In general, there was a tendency to prefer to work with those best known. Subjects included teachers, prin— cipals and speech therapists in addition to students. Whether preference to teach a group indicated a favorable acceptance ranking is not clear from these studies. Also, it would have been desirable to determine the extent of contact that persons had with disability groups. 0f general interest was the finding that familiarity or experi- ence with children is usually associated with higher prefer- ence rankings. To be consistent with later considerations, it is suggested that both belief and interactions are involved, and that to clarify attitude toward disability, both belief and interaction must be taken into consideration. The studies of Force and of Haring, gt _t. both sug— gested that children with cerebral palsy are considered the most difficult with whom to interact. In that of Haring, gt 39 ‘gt. (1958, p. 38) respondents were considering acceptability of children for regular school programs, so that mechanical considerations of class management were undoubtedly influ— ential, as well as personal reactions. Only those children with mild hearing disorders and with leg crippling-—if the latter were ambulatory by crutch or wheelchair—-were consid— ered educationally acceptable (pp. 40-41), although others were functionally capable of such placement. To some extent the study by Force (1956), which involved peer group sociometric friendship choices, also indicated a considerable range of acceptance—rejection, with cerebral palsy least accepted, hearing disorders next least, preceded by orthOpedically handicapped and vision. None of the group received as many choices as ”normal children." Force hypothesized an acceptance-rejection continuum based on "visibility"; i.e., obviousness of the impairment. As indicated before, Goodwin (1963) has suggested the further qualification that the proximity of the impairment to the face determines the importance of the visibility, and that this in turn is related to values of physical beauty. A study by Whiteman and Luckoff (1962) was concerned, among other things, with attitude structure and personal value orientations. Because of the theoretical foundation of the research, it has more than the usual degree of generality and relevance to other attitudinal studies, including those related Specifically to blindness, more NO generally to physical disability, and to the field of atti- tude research in general. In respect to structure1 the authors determined that for a given structural component, correlations are higher between disability groups (i.e., blind and "physical handi— caps" in general) than they are between this component and another component for the gggg disability group (i.e., blindness). The relationship between components, even though within a given disability, is poor. Thus the cor- relation between items dealing with the evaluation of a physical handicap and the evaluation of physi— cally handicapped people is .13 while the two items referring to blindness and blind people correlate .22. However, the relationship within components is appreciably better even though the responses are to different disabilities. Thus the two items refer— ring to blindness and physical handicap and their effect on most worthwhile experiences correlate .53 while the two items referring to the sorrowful characteristics of blind and physically handicapped people correlate .61. Similar considerations obtain when the components deal with pity towards blind peOple, or with readiness for interaction with them (pp. 15A—155). Whiteman and Luckoff also considered related value 2 " those who describe orientations of respondents. themselves as distant from others, or those who identify strongly with power may also express these orientations in negative evaluations of blindness" (p. 156). 1The authors appear to consider structure in this article as a pattern of organization of "beliefs and evalu- ations" (p. 153), which are the structural components. 2Other respondent variables considered by these authors, but not related to the present study, concern pro— jective characteristics, intelligence, and level of anxiety (pp- 155, 156). U1 The Measurement of Attitudes General Considerations Attitude has been previously defined as a "delimited totality of behavior with regpect to something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Responses on an attitude scale are one form of delimited behavior, but the attitude universe may con- sist of many forms of behavior which are more or less inter- correlated and which form separate subuniverses. An adequate attitude abstraction from this universe should include sampling from each of the possible sub-universes, a task of doubtful empirical possibility. A statement of the conceptual problem, however, points up limitations in the range of inferences one may make from a limited sampling of behavior. There will probably be a relationship between the statements one makes abouta person with a disability, and how one behaves overtly toward that person, but the relation- ship cannot be assumed without empirical support. Green (1959, pp. 335-336) makes three other salient points about attitudes, their underlying characteristics, and their relationship to other variables. First, there must be a consistency of responses in respect to some social object. Second, the attitude itself is an abstraction from a set of consistent, or covarying responses. ”In each measurement method, covariation among responses is related to the variation of an underlying variable. The latent attitude is defined by the correlations among responses" (p. 336). Responses themselves are not attitudes; rather, the attitude is defined by the latent variable. The detec— tion of this latent variable requires certain scale prop— erties. Finally, an attitude differs from other psycholog- ical variables (with the exception of value) because it is always in terms of a referent class of social objects. The approach to attitude assessment known as scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3) is consistent with the above consid- erations, and it 15 this approach which has been used in respect to the attitude variables employed in this study. Cross-National Research and Scale Analysis Various authors have considered the hazards of meaning equivalence in cross—national studies (Jacobson and Schachter, 195A; Jacobson, gt gt., 1960; Klineberg, 1950; Suchman, 1958, 1962, 196U; UNESCO, 1955, 1963). A primary problem in studies of this type is how to obtain comparable input stimuli, an aspect which may be sub-divided into problems of translation, and into the availability of equivalent language terms and concepts (Jacobson, _t _t., 1960, pp. 218-263). In respect to problems of input equivalence, Suchman (1958, p. 197), in reporting methodo— logical findings of the Cornell Cross—Cultural Methodology Project, has distinguished between ”concept" equivalence and "index" equivalence. He reported that it was not possible to compare specific questions and indices across 43 cultures, because: Technical problems such as language translation along with more subtle factors Of the meaning of words, com— bined to make it extremely difficult to compare responses from different cultures with any degree Of confidence that they were indeed equivalent. On the other hand, it was found that while specific indices might not be comparable, broader concgpts were. He suggested that scale analysis offered a "particularly promising method" Of determining concept equivalence. The problem Of input equivalence of concepts in cross— national studies would appear to be an aspect of the general problem Of question bias. Suchman (1950, Ch. 8) has explored the use of the measurement of the intensity Of feeling with which people hold tO their attitudes or opinions as a way Of surmounting differences in attitude or Opinion measurement results due mainly to nuances Of differ— ences in question wording (”bias"). Guttman (1954, p. 396), in referring tO the application Of this approach tO the problem Of bias by the Israel Institute Of Applied Research, has commented: "in Israel where we sometimes have to do the same study in twelve different languages, it is essential tO have a technique which does not depend on question wording." The potential rewards Of the method Of scale and intensity analysis were such that this approach was adopted for exploration in Costa Rica in respect tO each of the attitude measures. The following sections Offer an orienta— tion tO scale and intensity analysis. 44 Scale Analysis The following brief summary Of scale analysis is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely to present a ration— ale and an outline Of the approach used in the study. A basic reference tO this material is the writing Of Guttman (1950). Comprehensive discussions Of the technique in respect to other scaling methods are tO be found in Green (1954), Edwards (1957), and GOOde and Hatt (1952). Riley, gt _t. (1954) presents certain information in respect to technique not available elsewhere, and Riley (1963) and Waisanen (1960) presented simplified techniques for intro— ductory work with the method. Scale analysis provides a method for determining whether a set of items can be ordered along a single dimen- sion. If a particular attitude universe is really one— dimensional, any sampling Of items from it should also be one—dimensional, and should provide an ordering Of reSpon— dents essentially the same as that provided by any other sampling Of items from the universe. If the predicted ordering does not occur, the universe is judged to be multi- dimensional and consequently not scalable. It is possible, Of course, that items have been included which do not refer to the universe Of content. These non—scale items might be excluded; however, item exclusion must be exercised with caution (Green, 1954, p. 357). If items do suggest an underlying single dimension, it is meaningful to describe a 45 respondent with a higher total score as possessing more Of the characteristic being measured than someone with a lower total score. Most important, if scale properties are Ob- tained, this provides evidence for the existence Of a defined body Of Opinion in the respondent group in reSpect tO the particular area Of measurement involved. The fact that item scales are Obtained in each Of two or more countries being compared is evidence for concept equivalence, regardless Of variation in the content Of the particular items in the scales from one nationality group to another. In Guttman scaling, the focus is on the ranking Of respondents rather than on the ranking Of items. "We shall call a set Of items of common content a scale if a person with a higher rank than another person is just as high or higher on every item than the other person" (Guttman, 1950, p. 62). The individual item responses Of every respondent should be reproducible (with about 10% error allowable) from a knowledge Of his total score rank. The amount of error which is allowable in reproducing item scores from a knowledge Of respondent total score rank has been somewhat arbitrarily established at 10%, although Guttman has shown that if the errors are random in a given sample Of 100 persons and 5 dichotomous items, the population reproduci— bility should not vary more than 4 or 5 per cent from the reproducibility coefficient Of the sample (1950, p. 77). 46 Guttman has also described the quasi—scale,l which may occur when the reproducibility of a scale is lower than the required 90%, but when the errors occur in a random pattern. Stouffer (1950, p. 5) notes that ”the correlation Of the quasi-scale with an outside criterion is the same as the multiple correlation between responses to the individual items forming that scale and the out— side criterion [which] justifies the use Of sets Of items from an area not scalable in the strictest sense.” It should be pointed out that the criterion Of 90% reproduci— bility is no more an absolute standard than is the selection Of an alpha of .05 for a test Of significance. For some purposes a lower limit may be satisfactory, for others a higher limit may be a necessity. The important criteria in reSpect tO scale error would seem tO be the random nature of occurrence of the errors. ”The error pattern Of the quasi—scale question is recognizable from the manner in which the fairly large number Of errors that occur gradually decrease in number as one moves further and further away from the cutting point.2 These 1The analysis Of scales employed in the present study would appear tO place them in the category Of quasi-scales. 2The "cutting point” refers to the point at which the "favorable" (or, e.g., "yes") responses tO an item, can be divided with the least amount Of error from the "unfavorable" (or, e.g., "no") responses to an item, when the respondents have been ordered on the basis Of total score for all items in the scale. 47 errors . . . do not group together like non-scale errors" (Suchman, 1950, pp. 160, 161). This appears tO be the error pattern Obtained on the scales used in the present study. Scale and Intensity_Anatysis in Relation tO Cross—National Problem Of Comparability Of Responses Once scaling has been established so that there is some indication of unidimensionality, there remains the question of how tO divide the respondents on the basis of the favorableness or unfavorableness Of response. Foa (1950) and Suchman (1950, pp. 214—215) have shown how question bias can be introduced through slight changes Of question wording so that the response patterns of a set Of questions may be altered considerably. What is needed is an objective "0” point, independent Of the content Of the items, which will divide the favorables from the unfavorables. The method proposed is to ascertain for each item how intensely the respondent feels about the item. It has been shown experimentally (Foa, 1950, 1961; Guttman, 1947, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman, 1947; Suchman, 1950; Suchman and Guttman, 1947) that intensity will usually form a quasi-scale which, when plotted against the content dimension, will reveal the point on the content scale Of the lowest intensity of response. This 48 point has been empirically established as a pOint Of indif— ference in respect to the item content. Attitudes become favorable on one side of the point and unfavorable on the other side of the point. It then becomes possible to state in respect to a particular group about what per cent of the respondents are actually favorable, neutral, or unfavorable, as defined by an Objective and invariant referent point. This concept is of great potential significance for cross—national research, since it offers an objective tech— nique for comparing persons from one culture to another, regardless of subtle meaning changes resulting from trans- lation problems, providing that the item content is scalable within each Of the countries being compared. Both the point of division, and the shape of the intensity curve are Of interest. The shape Of the curve may indicate whether people are generally apathetic about the issue at hand or are sharply divided into Opposing groups. These potential benefits Of scale and intensity analysis recom— mended their use for the present study. Major Research Hypotheses Eigptheses Related to Scalability of fittitude Data and to Scale and lfliensity Analysis H-l.-—Each set of attitude items employed in the Study (Appendix C) represents an underlying one—dimensional universe of content, so that Guttman scale analysis will yield a scale or quasi—scale of attitude items. 49 A. Attitude-toward-disabled-persons items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi-scale. B. Traditional-attitude-toward-education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi—scale. C. Progressive—attitude-toward-education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi—scale. Hypothesis derivation: The utility of scaling for cross- national research has been discussed on pages 42 and following, above. The basis for the assertion Of the hypothesis in respect to the Costa Rican respondents and the attitude-Object—group of physical disability, rests on the assumption that disabled persons represent a salient group in Costa Rica, so that people will hold Opinions in respect to them, either on a favorable- unfavorable, or a different—similar continuum. The basis for the assertion Of the hypothesis in respect to the education items, rests on the original factor derivation of the "traditional" and "progressive" items by Kerlinger (1958, 1961), and on pre-test scaling of these items in Lansing, Michigan in March Of 1964, in which "traditional" items were found to scale independently of "progressive” items among a sample of 97 students and job re-training workers. Instrumentation: The attitude scales, as modified for the present study, are found in Appendix C. 50 Hg; --For each attitude scale the plotting of intensity scores against content scores will yield a U—shaped or J- shaped curve. A. For attitude—toward-disabled—persons items, the plotting will yield a U or J—shaped curve. B. For traditional-attitude—toward—education items, the plotting will yield a U or J-shaped curve. C. For progressive—attitude-toward—education items, the plotting will yield a U or J—shaped curve. Hypothesis derivation: From empirical findings reported by Suchman (1950) and others that such a relationship may be expected and should serve to establish a "g" point dividing the favorably—disposed from the unfavorably—disposed respon- dents (see pp. 47 and 48 above). Instrumentation: Following each attitude item, a separate question referring to the intensity with which a respondent held the Opinion expressed on the content statement (see Appendix C). Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency and Attitude Scores H:;.—-The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the more favorable the attitude expressed toward disabled persons.1 1For this hypothesis, and all following hypotheses in which tests Of significance are involved, the statement of the hypothesis is in the research form rather than the null form for purposes of clarity. It should be understood that in the statistical analyses it is the null form, either one- Or two—tailed, which will be tested. 51 Hypothesis derivation: From considerations Of Homans (see page 30, above), and various studies in special education (see page 33, above). Instrumentation: Contact frequency, by a direct question, number 3 Of the Personal Questionnaire (Appendix B); attitudes toward disabled persons, by a 20—statement atti— tude instrument developed by Yuker, gt gt. (1960) and modified for the purposes Of the present study (Appendix C). _:£.-—The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the attitude—toward—disabled-persons scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Rosenberg, Foa, and Guttman and Foa, to the effect that contact fre— quency is directly related to attitude intensity, regard— less Of content direction (see pages 28 and 29, above). Instrumentation: Contact frequency measured as in H-3; attitude intensity scores Obtained through independent intensity questions following each attitude content state— ment (see Appendix C). H:5.——Persons who score gtgg_in need for power and control over others will tend to score tgg in acceptance of disabled persons. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Wright in respect to asset vs. comparative valuations of others (see 52 page 26, above), and of Rosenberg to the effect that the more the belief content of an attitude is instrumental to value maintenance, the more favorable will be the evalua— tion of the Object of the attitude (pages 20 and 21, above). Persons with high power needs are applying a comparative yardstick in evaluations Of others and should be expected to de-value persons with disabilities. Some empirical confirmation of this appears in findings of Whiteman and Luckoff in respect to blindness (see page 40, above). Instrumentation: Need for power and control measured by the Leadership scale Of the Gordon Survey Of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B); attitudes-toward-disabled—persons, as in H-3. g:Q.--Persons who score gtgg in need for recognition and achievement will tent to score tgg_in acceptance of disabled persons. Hypothesis derivation: As in H—5. Instrumentation: Need for recognition and achievement measured by the Recognition scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix D). H-7.--Persons who score gtgg in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score gtgg in acceptance of disabled persons. Hypothesis derivation: As in H-6, but stated in terms of an asset-value orientation rather than a comparative—value orientation. 53 Instrumentation: Need to be helpful and generous measured by the Benevolence scale of the Gordon Survey of Inter- personal Values (Appendix D). Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Those Working Directly with Dis— abled Persons (Special Education and Rehabilitation Group) H:8.--Persons working directly with disabled persons will have a higher mean attitude—toward—disabled—persons score than will persons in other occupational categories. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Zetterberg (see page 32, above), to the effect that high frequency of contact is positively associated with favorableness of attitude if (a) the interaction could be easily avoided, and (b) there are other rewarding activities to engage in. The linkage of (a) and (b) with occupational categories rests on the assumption that a measure of choice and job alternatives was present in the selection Of employment; i.e., that special education and rehabilitation employees chose this occupation in preference to others. Instrumentation: Attitude scores measured as in H-3. H—9.-—Persons working directly with disabled persons will have a higher mean score than will persons in other occupational categories in respect to the value of Benevolence and a lower mean score in respect to the values Of Leadership and Recognition. 54 Hypothesis derivation: Hypothesis H—4 as related to H-6, H-7, and H-8. Instrumentation: As in H—6, H—7, and H—8. g;tg.-—The special education and rehabilitation group will have a higher mean score in progressive—attitudes- toward education than will persons in other occupational categories. Hypothesis derivation: From considerations of Jordan that special education and rehabilitation groups in Latin America are generally more modern in orientation than are other groups, and will be more accepting of progressive ideas (see above, page 26). Instrumentation: Progressive-attitudes-toward—education items as in Appendix C. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Reasons for the Selection of San Jose, Costa Rica for Pilot Study It was the purpose Of this investigation to serve as a pilot study for a multi—nation study on attitudes toward education, including attitudes toward the education of handicapped persons, being conducted by Dr. John E. Jordan of Michigan State University. Since the study originally focused on Latin American countries, the pilot project needed also to be conducted in a Latin American country. The selection of Costa Rica, rather than one of the other Latin American countries, was dictated by particular re— quirements. First, there were requirements or restrictions that were placed on the sample. One of these was that a fairly broad segment of the population, including industrial workers, should have a fairly high rate of literacy, at approximately a fifth or sixth grade level by United States standards. This requirement was established in advance by a pretesting of instruments among persons Of varying educa— tional levels in a job retraining program in Lansing, Michigan. A second requirement was that special education and rehabilitation programs must be established to the extent 55 2t: .Ii all 56 that a sufficient number of persons were working in the field to comprise a large enough group for data analysis. A third requirement was that there be easy geographical access to respondents, that they be located within a central area, and be readily accessible through public transportation. A fourth requirement was that there be some persons in the area sufficiently interested in the project assistance in translation and interpretation, and in contacting persons who might help to contact respondents and arrange for test administration. A fifth requirement was that there be persons in the area able and willing to provide technical assistance in social research, such as knowledge of the population, an established procedure for translating and reproducing scale and questionnaire instruments with adequate precision for research purposes, and to provide consultation on the myriad details which were only vaguely anticipated. San Jose met all Of these requirements. General Description of Costa Rica There is not a large amount Of current written material available in English to those interested in Costa Rica. Two excellent, though somewhat specialized, sources are those of Nunley (1960) on population distribution, and by Quiros (1962) devoted primarily to the role of agriculture in the economic growth of the country. Both sources, in particular that of Quiros, contain information Of a general economic and 57 sociological nature. A highly readable source Of general information, though somewhat outdated, is the book by John and Mavis Biesantz (1944) on Costa Rican life. Geographic Costa Rica is about the size of West Virginia, and located between Nicaragua to the north and Panama to the southeast. Two mountainous ridges pass through from the northwest to the southeast and provide a high flat section called the Central Plateau which supports the capital city of San Jose. This geographic diversity is accompanied by a diversity of climate. Since Costa Rica is in the torrid zone, the costal areas are hot and generally humid, whereas around San Jose, and on the plateau generally, the tempera— ture departs only a few degrees from 65 to 70 Fahrenheit. The great majority of the population are concentrated on the Central Plateau (Furbay, 1946). Economic Agriculture is the principal economic sector of Costa Rica and this is dominated by the coffee crOp. Since 1950, however, agriculture has been somewhat on the decline, although still contributing about three times as much as any other sector (in terms of percentages) to the gross national domestic product. The largest per cent growth since 1950 has been in government and government institutions (Quiros, 1962, p. 124). Costa Rica has achieved an overall rate of _pn 'l‘ >.‘ l—v 58 growth in the national product of 7.84 per cent from 1950 to 1959 (Quiros, 1962, p. 136). At the time Of this study in May, 1964, the economy was being affected by the activity of the volcano Irazu which, since December, 1963, had been sending large amounts of volcanic ash over the Central Plateau and had affected many sectors of the economy. Of greatest importance was the damage to the coffee industry. With less coffee to export, Costa Ricans were concerned about the balance Of trade with other countries. Political The political history Of Costa Rica is a relatively peaceful one, characterized by commitment to a democratic form Of government. According to Herring (1961, pp. 469— 473) they have not been extensively involved with other Central American countries until recently, when there has been much interest in the Central American common market. Outside Of'a brief incident in 1955, when an invasion from Nicaragua against the government of Jose Figuerez was repelled with the aid of United States intervention, there have been no outstanding crises. The last threat to con- stitutional government was in 1948, when a group "allegedly Communist in sympathies" (Herring, 1961, p. 471) sought to interfere with the election of a president. This was unsuccessful. By Latin American standards, Costa Rica may 59 be considered to reflect an unusual degree of political stability. Educational References to Costa Rican education are laudatory. Burns (1964, p. 201) states: "More than 80 per cent of Costa Rica's 1.2 million citizens are literate. In Latin America, only Chile, Cuba, and Mexico have comparably high literacy rates. This small country has 9,421 public school teachers and about one—fifth Of the national budget goes for education." Herring (1961, p. 469) also cites an 80% rate of literacy. Two earlier reports contradict each other. Biesantz (1944) suggests that about 70% literacy would be correct for that period, whereas Furbay (1946, p. 58) reports that ”97.2 per cent of the school—age children are in school." This latter figure would seem to be far too high, but is consistent with the seemingly uncritical nature Of the Furbay report. Costa Rica has consistently supported education1 and has achieved a remarkable educational product, but limita- tions are apparent today as they were in 1946. The majority Of students, particularly in the rural areas do not go beyond the 4th or 5th grade, and often not beyond the 2nd or 3rd grade. The reason today, as in 1946, is poverty lBiesantz (1944, p. 108) states that as far back as 1927, 22 per cent of the national budget went to education. 6O Biesantz states: "Frequently the children are needed to help at home or at work for others to supplement the low family income. This is most common in the rural districts." He quotes a former school director: "'of course, we have laws stating that children must attend school, but when the parents come to you and explain that they just cannot feed and clothe the child, there is nothing one can do. What sense would there be in forcing a starving child to come to school? We don't'” (Biesantz, 1944, pp. 114—115). The Observer in San Jose today notes educational con— trasts. On the side Of public investment, there is an energetic building program. The new schools are bright, airy, architectually pleasing, and original; however, teacher salaries are still low, averaging less than $100.00 per month (actually, 400 to 450 colones for elementary teachers) and there are still few inducements for men to enter the field except in administrative positions. The University Of Costa Rica at San Jose has a basic three year teacher-training program, the only one in Central America with a full—year liberal arts requirement, and offers an additional 2-year voluntary program for a 5-year certificate. The young teachers in this program appear intelligent and enthusiastic in their work. However, there are not enough Of them. The basic problem in education in Costa Rica today may not be one of commitment (since even in 1959 education received 20% Of the national budget according to 61 Quiros, 1962, p. 100), but of continued economic growth and development for the country as a whole. Special Education and Rehabilitation in Costa Rica There are two principal facilities. The first is a complex Operated under the auSpices Of the National Center of Rehabilitation, Hospital San Juan de Dios, in San Jose, under the directorship Of Dr. Humberto Araya. It is sup— ported by the national government both directly and in- directly. Directly, there is a "donation" by the govern- ment of 300,000 colones ($50,000) to support salaries and the orthopedic department. Indirectly, the Hospital San Juan de Dios, which is supported by the national lottery (Stratis, 1961, p. 4), provides essential food, clothes, medicine, laboratory services, etc. Dr. Araya (1963) has noted that in spite of the government donation, 80% Of orthopedic services to patients is donated. The center Offers the services of "medical consultation, physiotherapy treatment, occupational therapy, vocational therapy, social service, and orthopedic shop" (Araya, 1963). Dr. Araya has estimated that there are 70,000 cripples in Costa Rica, Of which the rehabilitation center has worked with 12,000. There is a new and privately endowed children's convalescent home located at Santa Ana, about 15 miles from San Jose in a rural setting, which is intended to house about 60 children. Although privately Operated, the staff Of the rehabilitation center serve as consultants. 62 The second of the principal facilities for disabled children is the Escuela de Ensenanza Especial (School of Special Education) Operated under the direction of Dr. Fernando Guell. Whereas the first facility was primarily a medical treatment facility, Dr. Guell's school is a privately operated educational facility. Children with a variety of handicapping conditions including crippling, blindness, deafness, and mental retardation are educated there. The teachers, ccording to the preliminary results of the present survey, are among the best trained and paid in the country, and have current information on practices in the United States and Europe. Equipment is modern. Although there was little Opportunity for observation of educational practices, it appeared that conditions are similar to ”typical" special education programs in the United States in respect to instructional procedures, class size, teacher competency, equipment, and guiding philOSOphy. The school is located in Guadelupe, a suburb of San Jose. Research Population The research population consisted of an initial 278 adult men and women employed in various occupations in San Jose, Costa Rica. The rationale for selection of occupa- tional groups was based on their relationship, or potential relationship, to persons with physical disabilities. It was hoped to have about equal representation from each of 63 the following occupational groups, with at least 50 persons to a group, and a tOtal N of 350 to 400 respondents: 1. Persons who are directly in a teaching or training relationship to physically handicapped persons. Elementary and secondary teachers who are not in any working relationship to physically handicapped persons, to serve as a control on group 1. Medical personnel employed full or part time in work with persons with handicapping conditions. It was expected that this group would fall short of the desired N. Medical persons in private practice. Low socio-economic occupational groups; skilled laborers, shop mechanics, typists, etc., who represent the peer group with whom most disabled persons would be employed. Business men, who represent the potential employers of the disabled. Two other assumptions were made which contributed to the preference for these particular groupings. First, it was assumed that different value orientations would be found among persons in these different occupational cate- gories. Second, the groups represent different kinds of contact and frequencies of contact with the disabled. It 614 was instrumental to the hypotheses to have these variations within the sample. The selection of the sample reflects the difference in rationale between a pilot study and a study designed to make the maximum of generalizations from the results. A pilot study can make use of known groups without particular concern with their representation within the population as a whole because there is no intention of generalizing the results to the population as a whole. The present concern is not so much with the entire variation of the population as with the relationships between certain extreme types. Thus, in respect to the general population, the present sample contains almost the entire population of rehabilita— tion and special education workers in Costa Rica, has a considerable over-representation of doctors, is somewhat over-represented with teachers, is under-represented with business men, and is grossly under-represented with non— professionals. The actual empirical sample did not fully meet the criteria originally thought desirable, although the prin- cipal requirements were met. The actual sample was as follows: 1. Persons working directly in special education and rehabilitation; teaching, medical, and para- medical services, N of 57. 2. Persons teaching, but not in relation to physical disability, N of 113. 65 3. Persons in low-rated occupational groups: skilled laborers, mechanics, typists, and secretaries, N of U9. u. Persons in business and professions unrelated to teaching or Special education and rehabili- tation: business men, doctors, social workers, N of 48. Clearly this is not a particularly logical grouping and is a reflection more of expediency than of good sampling practice. 5. The total N of the sample was 267, of which 123 were males and 1&4 were females. Selection of Variables The selection of variables was dictated mostly by theoretical considerations already reviewed and partly by well—established sociological tradition in respect to the selection of demographic variables. The theoretically—dictated variables were mainly those suspected to be in some particular relationship to the criterion variable of attitudes toward physical dis- ability. Other variables were included, however, which were intended to provide information in respect to the characteristics of persons who work with the handicapped, rather than in respect to attitudes toward handicapped persons. These variables are those of: (a) mobility, (b) personalism, (c) institutional satisfaction, and (d) religiosity. The fact that some of these variables were 66 found to have a relationship to scores on the criterion measure was largely fortuitous to the design of the research. The major variables used in the study are discussed in the following section. Attitudes Toward Physical Disability The items used in this scale were taken from the Attitudes Toward Disability Scale (Yuker, at al., 1960). Adequate test—retest reliability scores were reported, and various construct validity measures which were all collected from disabled employees of Abilities, Inc. of New York, a light manufacturing company which employs dis- abled workers. Among these employees the test was found to be negatively related to age and anxiety, and posi— tively related to verbal intelligence and job satisfaction. Females and those with low absentee rates made higher scores. Although the validating group has questionable generality and the rationale for item selection is not clear, the test represents an attempt to fill a gap in the field and deserves further study. It seems to be the only instrument available. Modifications were made in the provisions for respon- dent scoring. The Likert—type format was retained, but the response categories for each item were reduced from seven to four. A further modification was that instead of 67 requiring the respondent to transfer a number from a set of coded categories at the top of the page to indicate his response, the item alternatives were stated following each question (see Appendix C). It was felt that these modifi- cations would simplify the task for the respondent. Since it was intended to submit the items to scale analysis rather than follow the suggested scoring system, there was no need to retain the same numerical scores. Fifteen of the 20 attitude items are statements of differences between disabled persons and those not disabled, and agreement with those statements is interpreted as refle--ing an unfavorable attitude; consequently the scoring is reversed for these items in order that a higher score will indicate a more favorable attitude. Attitudes Toward Education Modifications similar to those described above were made on the Attitudes Toward Education Scale developed by Kerlinger (see Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959). The scales were included for three reasons: first, ecause they are short and simple to administer; second, because in a study so closely interwoven with educational concerns, the results are interesting in their own right; and third, because there is a rationale in Latin American countries for hypothesizing a relationship between progres— sive attitudes toward education and attitudes toward physical disability. The scales represent a factor analysis 68 of a set of “0 items given to 598 subjects of varying back- grounds, but all apparently of above average education. The scales have been found to hold up under cross-validation; however, there is no indication that persons of lower educational attainment have been adequately represented in the studies. A surface examination of the items (see Appendix C) suggests that some of them may be somewhat overly complex and difficult for many people. The complete instrument consists of 20 items, of which l0 are "progres— sive," 10 "traditional." As employed in this study, the progressive and traditional items were analyzed indepen- dently as two separate scales. The Intensity Scales A simple approximation of the intensity function has been successfully attained by asking a question about intensity after each content question. One form used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly,” and ”Not so strongly.” Repeating such a question after each content question yields a series of in- tensity answers. Using the same procedure as for content answers, these are scored and each respondent is given an intensity score. The inten— sity scores are then cross tabulated with the content scores (Suchman, 1950, p. 219). This procedure was the one adopted to measure intensity for both the attitude items relating to handicapped persons and to education. In the process of translating the instrument iNto Spanish, it was suggested that a more meaningful trans- lation would be: "How certain are you about your answer?” This suggestion was adopted. Four response categories were usedinstead of the three suggested by Suchman. 69 Interpersonal Values In selecting the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960), two factors were considered: first, an instrument was needed which would yield scores on items that seemed logically related to the values under test in the hypotheses, those of ”asset" orientation to others, and "comparative" orientation to others. Of the six sub-scales in the instrument, the one for Benevolence is described as follows: "Doing things for other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being generous" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Among studies presented in a subsequent research brief, Benevolence was found to correlate .A9 with the Nurturancc score on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and negatively with Achievement (-.2A) and Aggres— sion (-.28) (Gordon, 1963, p. 22). It was decided on the basis of the description, the item content, and the inter- correlations with the EPPS that the Gordon Benevolence Value would be an adequate operationalization of the "asset value." The second value to be operationalized was that of a "comparative" orientation toward others. The Gordon manual offers the following definition for Recognition Value: "Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). The following definition was offered for Con— formity Value: "Doing what is socially correct, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, 70 being a conformist" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Leadership was defined as "Being in charge of other people, having auth— ority over others, being in a position of leadership or power (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). All three of these values would appear to involve rankings of others on some kind of absolute scale, either of social acceptability (Con— formity), achievement (Recognition), or power (Leadership). On the basis of surface consideration of such content the Recognition and Leadership items were judged to be most representative of Comparative Values. A second consideration was the validity of the instrument in a different cultural application than the one for which it was designed. The author of the instru— ment was able to furnish a preliminary mimeographed Spanish translation of the instrument (which was revised in Costa Rica) but no reliability or validity data were available. However, translations in French and Japanese (Gordon, 1963, pp. l7—2l) yielded scores between known groups consistent with expectations. The forced-choice format of the instru- ment may also be less sensitive to subtle shifts in item meaning resulting from translation than a format in which each item is separately responded to as "agree" or "dis- agree," or according to a Likert-type format. Apart from these somewhat shaky foundations, it is expected that in the present study some estimate of validity may be obtained through confirmation of predictions about the values of 71 known groups used in the study (predictive validity), and from expected relationships between other scores (concurrent validity). Personal Contact Variables Two types of variables related to personal contact were represented by six items on the questionnaire, three of a general nature and three relating specifically to contact with physically disabled persons. Each item~ generated a score. Single—items scores are notoriously unstable, and no reliability data can be offered. There is some evidence of the predictive validity of some of the items, in respect to expectancies that known groups should respond in certain ways. For example, it was expected that persons working in rehabilitation or special education pro- grams would report a higher frequency of contact with dis- abled persons than would persons not working in the field of disability. This was indeed the case, and might be consid- ered an item validation. Contact with the Disabled This set of three items requested respondents to indicate: (a) the kind of physical disability with which they had had the most contact, or knew the most about; (b) the type of relationship they had had with physically dis- abled persons-—family, friends, working relationships, casual, etc.; and (c) the approximate number of encounters they'had had with physically disabled persons. 72 Preferences for Personal Relationships This set of three items was devised to help identify respondents, or groups of respondents, along a traditional- modern dimension. The predominance of affective relation- ships as opposed to affectively neutral relationships is supposedly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the "Gemeinshaft," or traditional, orientation (e.g., Loomis, 1960, p. 6lff). One question asked the reSpondent to indi- cate the approximate per cent of personal interactions on the job which were with persons who were close personal friends. Another question asked how important it was to work with persons who were close personal friends. A third question was intended to signify diffuseness or Specificity of personal interactions under the hypothesis that the traditionally oriented person is more likely to have personal interactions which are diffused between job and family, or other affective non—job interactions. ”Members of the Gemeinshaft-like system are likely to know each other well; their relationships are functionally diffuse in that most of the facets of human personality are revealed in the prolonged and intimate associations common to such systems” (Loomis, 1960, p. 72). The Special education and rehabilitation group, then, being committed to "asset" values (by hypothe— sis), being more concerned with intrinsic valuation of the person rather than valuing him for his absolute achievements, should also express a greater need for personal interactions 73 generally, and a greater diffuseness of interpersonal re- lationships. Religiosity Three questions were oriented toward religion: one, religious preference, elicited answers so overwhelmingly Catholic (all but eight of the respondents) that it was not considered further; another was oriented toward the felt importance of religion to the respondent; a third was oriented toward conformity to the rules and regulations of the church. These latter two questions revealed a posi- tive response bias in the population as almost no one would state a rejection of religion (a Similar Situation occurred in respect to institutional satisfaction, see below). Items were re—scored in order to attain a more balanced distribu- tion. The two "negative” categories (alternatives 3 and A) were combined, which placed response alternative 2 at the center, yielding a more normal distribution. "Religiosity" also relates to the traditional—modern dimension, and higher scores would be expected among the lower income group, and among persons with less education. Institutional Satisfaction This was a set of measures adapted from Hyman (1955, p. 400). The institutions selected (schools, business, labor, government, health services, churches) were listed and an opportunity offered to indicate whether they were 7A judged excellent, good, fair, or poor in respect to how well they do their particular job in the community. It was hypothesized that people working in Special education and rehabilitation would be less satisfied with institu— tions generally than other groups. Persons with high education in relation to income might also be expected to be less satisfied than others. Scoring was revised by combining categories of "poor" and "fair” in order to give a better distribution of scores. Again, no reliability estimates are offered, and validity will be a function of concurrent correlation coefficients. Demographic Variables Respondents were asked to indicate their placement on several variables often found to be of Significance in sociological analysis: these were education, occupation, income, rental, age, sex, marital status, number of children, number of siblings, home ownership, mobility, and rural- urban youth. In the analysis, not all were used because of time limitations. Marital status, number of children, and home ownership, were not attempted. Number of Siblings was included, but drOpped out of the analysis because of a recording error. Three variables, occupational and resi- dential mobility, and rural-urban youth, were independently analyzed by multiple regression techniques, but this analysis has been omitted from the present study. The vari- ables were not productive for dissertation purposes. All of ‘\l U“: these variables will be utilized more fully in the larger study being conducted by Dr. John E. Jordan of Michigan State University (see p. 5U, above). Collection of Data Data was collected by group administration of the instruments to all but three of the fourteen groups who participated in the study. Three of the professional groups (two medical and one of special education) were unable to meet together for the necessary one and one—half hours of test administration time, but offered to fill out the forms individually and return them. From these groups there was a return of approximately 85 per cent of complete and usable data, which was judged to be an exceptionally good response. A set of procedures was developed for the administra- tion. After the first administration these procedures were revised and were given in the revised form for the rest of the administrations. A set of instructions was developed which consisted of: (a) a statement of appreciation for the COOperation of the group; (b) a general statement of the reason for the investigation; (0) a statement of the format of the administration; (d) an oral explanation for the first section of the administration given after the handicapped persons scale and the education scales had been passed out with accompanying written instructions; (e) an oral explanation of the value scale given after all 76 respondents had completed the first two instruments, and after the value scales had been passed out; (f) an oral explanation of the questionnaire given after the value scales had been completed and the questionnaire had been passed out; and, (g) with several of the groups where reading skills and comprehension were relatively low, an oral presentation of the first eight items on the question- naire, taken one at a time by the entire group, was found to be necessary. These items were found to be overly com— plex in format and subject to misunderstanding. The instruments were administered in the following order: 1. Attitudes toward handicapped persons; 2. Traditional attitudes toward education; 3. Progressive attitudes toward education; A. The Survey of Interpersonal Values; 5. The personal questionnaire. An administrator's summary sheet was developed for the recording of pertinent administration data. This in- cluded the names of those who had helped arrange for the administration, who assisted with the administration, who assisted with the interpretation, etc. It included rele- vant statistical data about common occupational character- istics and occupational diversity. A final section was for the recording of test conditions: adequacy of lighting, space, ventilation, working space, noise, and any unusual interruptions or difficulties with the administration. 77 Perhaps the most noteworthy fact about the test admin- istration is that it was done in each instance through an interpreter. With most of the groups this person was Mr. Norman White, who was instrumental to the early success of the investigation. Mr. White was from Port Limon, Costa Rica, and a graduate of Howard University in Washington, D. C. He is a Negro, and bi-lingual. An undetermined factor in the investigation is the effect that may have been intro— duced through the instruments being administered by a foreigner through an interpreter; however, this effect was constant throughout the administration, with the exception of the three groups in which the instruments were self— administered. Statistical Procedures Descriptive Scores for the total group were partitioned by sex and by occupational groupings. For purposes of clarity and convenience, data is sum— marized in the text of Chapter A. Additional descriptive data is presented in Appendix A. Scale and Intensity Analysis The general procedures are discussed by Suchman (1950, Chs. A and 7). In working with Likert-type items, two prob— lems arise which call for special techniques. The first is that of organizing the respondent-item matrix so that items can be dichotomized with the aid of visual inspection and counting. Once the items are dichotomized into 9, l cate- gories the second problem, common to all Guttman-type scale procedure, is that of re-ordering respondents in the order of their new total scores, and then recording the items for inspection of the resulting scale pattern. Various techniques have been proposed such as the use of specially constructed boards which employ shot to indicate item reSponses (Suchman, 1950, Ch. A). A technique employing no special equipment except a typewriter was suggested by Waisanen (1960), which is appealing by virtue of its simplicity. It was intended to use the Waisanen procedure for the entire scaling, but, to further save time in analysis, only part of this procedure was employed——that relating to dichotomization of items. The dichotomized items were then scaled by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program in use with the CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University (Lingoes, I963; Hafterson, 1964). All scales, for both content and intensity, were submitted to the same procedure. The procedure for combining the content and intensity scales is described by Suchman (1950, Ch. 7). The basic procedure is to form a matrix of scores such that total intensity scores are entered on the vertical axis and total content scores are entered on the horizontal axis. '7' (9 Respondents are tabulated in the resulting cells on the basis of the two total scores received for each scale; one in content, one in intensity. For each content rank, a median intensity score is computed. The curve of intensity on content is formed by these median scores. The lowest point of the curve represents the psychological "9" point which divides favorable from unfavorable Opinion or attitude (Suchman, 1950, pp. 220—223). Partial Correlation Partial correlation is one of the outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC 3600 Core Routine at Michigan State University (ABS 4, 1963; ABS 5, 1963; ABS 12, 1963). One benefit of the use of partial correlation is that a number of variables which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion, or dependent, variable, can be examined simultaneously. Often, when a series of Pearsonian product-moment rls are computed between a criterion and a set of variables considered to be predictors of the criterion, spurious conclusions may be obtained because the predictor variables are themselves interrelated, rather than directly predictive of the criterion. In a partial correlation solution to the problem these relation— ships among the predictor variables are taken into account in computing the true correlation of each variable with the criterion. That is, the effects of all but one variable are 80 held constant. The use of multiple regression analysis is recommended by Ward (1962, p. 206) because it "not only reduces the dangers inherent in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before considered 'researchable'." In the CDC 3600 Core Routine a great deal of data can be gathered from one analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for a number of specified sub-groups, or partitionings, of the data. For each speci— fied group (e.g., total, male-female, etc.) a number of statistics can be requested. Those used in this program were: means and standard deviations for each variable, the matrix of simple correlations between all variables, the multiple correlations of all variables on the criterion, the beta weights of all predictor variables, a test of sig— nificance for each beta weight, and the partial correlations between each predictor and the criterion. In actual prac- tice, only the descriptive statistics, the zero—order cor— relations, and the partial correlations have been used in the analysis. The multiple correlation is of interest in the overall comparison of one group with another, but represents such a diverse set of predictors that the precise meaning seems difficult to interpret. Tests of Significance of the correlation coefficients from zero are the usual ones, with tables entered for the appropriate degree of freedom. 81 Two separate multiple regression analyses were done. The first analysis used as a criterion the scores from the handicapped persons scale, as dichotomized and re—scored by the procedure described in the preceding section. Thirty- one predictor variables were selected, representing all of the variables which could possibly be stretched into some pretense of interval data. A number of highly intercor- related variables (zero—order) were revealed during the solution to this first problem which triggered warning messages of an error build-up within the computer. An analysis of the zero—order and partial correlations of this first programming then resulted in the selection of the eight variables reported in Table 11 as predictors. 0n the second running of the Core Routine, no warning indicators were received, and the multiple and partial correlations reported are from this second pass through the computer using the set of eight selected predictors. Factor Analysis It had not been originally intended to obtain factor analysis data. However, the program was available and the labor of the researcher, if not that of the computer, is relatively simple compared to the potential pay-off. This is a situation which invites further consideration. Guil- ford (195“, p. 522) states: The most defensible reason a psychologist can have for making a factor analysis is to aim toward the clarification of useful concepts in a domain where 82 adequate concepts are now lacking. There are, to be sure, practical reasons, among which is the desire to reduce the number of variables with which one operates. A better statement of rationale for the inclusion of factor analysis in the present study could hardly be made. The research was operating in a comparatively unexplored domain, with a set of variables much in need of order and simplifi- cation. The possibility of reducing the number of variables in the studies which are projected to follow this pilot project was a deciding factor. A technical description of the factor analysis pro— grams for the CDC 3600 computer at Michigan State University is found in DeJonge and Sim (1964). Options selected from the program were the use of Guttman communalities, both Varimax and Quartimax rotations, and the Kiel-Wrigley criterion for the number of factors to be rotated. In respect to the Varimax and Quartimax rotations, the differ- ence in the printouts seemed negligible for the data analyzed in this study. Quartimax was analyzed, but essentially the same results would have been obtained with analysis of the Varimax rotations. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA This chapter is organized into four sections: section 1, the testing of the hypotheses presented at the end of Chapter II (pages A8—51); section 2, comparisons of mean differences of various scores when the respondents are divided according to (a) sex and (b) occupational cate— gories; section 3, the presentation of correlational rela- tionships among the variables of the study as obtained for (a) the total group, (b) males and females, and (c) for each major occupational classification; section A, the presentation of factor-analytic data for the variables of the study as obtained for the total group. The Testing of Hypotheses In this section there are presented ten hypotheses organized into four main categories relating to: (a) the scale properties of the various attitude items; (b) relation- ships between contact frequency and attitude scores; (0) relationships between value and attitude scores; and (d) characteristics of persons working with the disabled, as compared with others in the study. 83 8A Hypotheses Related to Scalability of Attitude Data and to Scale and Intensity Analysis The scaling hypotheses in this section (H-la, H-lb, and H—lc) are unlike those in the other sections in that they test an expected empirical—mathematical relationship rather than relationships between two or more sets of empirically—derived data; that is, they predict a fit of empirical data to an ordinal scale criteria. Hypothesis 1 states: each set of attitude items employed in the study (Appendix C) represents an under- lying one-dimensional universe of content, so that Guttman scale analysis will yield a scale or quasi-scale of attitude items. A strict testing of this hypothesis re- quires the application of procedures advocated by Guttman and others and discussed in Chapter II (pages Huff). For two reasons, however, the procedure of Multiple Scalogram Analysis (MSA) (Lingoes, 1963) was substituted for Guttman Scalogram Analysis (GSA). First, GSA provides no satisfactory rationale for dealing with items which do not conform to the undimen- sional scale pattern; thus, if there are two underlying dimensions represented in the scale items it would usually be necessary to reject a scale hypothesis by GSA procedures. MSA does not require an a priori assumption of a single dimension, but permits the data "to form whatever relation- ships are implicit, consistent with the logical and 85 statistical requirements of the procedure" (Lingoes, 1963, p. 513). The possibility of extracting more than one set of unidimensional items from an item pool which had not been originally developed for scaling procedures was an attractive one, particularly considering the pilot nature of the study and the lack of pre—test data in Costa Rica. It was felt that MSA provided an analytic flexibility that outweighed its shortcomings.l Second, no computer program was available for GSA at Michigan State University at the time of the analysis, and even relatively uncomplicated procedures (e.g., Waisanen, 1960) proved highly laborious by hand analysis, given the number of items, scales, and respondents involved in the manipulations; however, a CD0 3600 computer program was available for MSA which required only that items be dichoto— mized prior to analysis (Hafterson, 196A). Procedures for dichotomization of items were taken from Waisanen (1960). A detailed account of procedures actually employed in the analysis may be found in the Code Book, Section 1 (Appendix E) and in Chapter III. Following are the findings in respect to the three sub-hypotheses of hypothesis one. 1A problem with MSA is that if what is actually desired is the best scale that can be obtained with all of the items, this may not be possible because of built-in statistical criteria. This prevents obtaining quasi-scales at lower levels of reproducibility, which in some instances may be quite a useful finding. A discussion of quasi— scales may be found on pages A8ff above. 86 H:la: Attitude—toward—disabled—persons will form a Guttman scale or quasi-scale. This hypothesis was not tested in an entirely appropriate form because of the ap- plication of MSA procedures to the data rather than GSA procedures. The MSA program extracted two scales from the original twenty items, the first consisting of seven items, the second of three items. The items, along with statis- tical data, are reproduced in Figure l and Figure 2, on the following pages. The first set of items appear to be relatively stereotyped statements related to the capability of the disabled persons to integrate into "normal" society. The statements are all expressed in the negative, but whereas most persons reject the statement that disabled persons cannot have a normal social life (157 out of 267) nearly all were willing to accept the statement that disabled persons are often grouchy (only 16 out of 267 rejected this statement). These two statements represent the extremes of scale positions, and lend a face validity to the procedure; at least, it would seem a much more serious rejection to be excluded from "normal" social intercourse than to be characterized as "grouchy," and this appears to be the thinking of the respondents in San Jose. The three-item scale (Fig. 2) is difficult to chara- cterize apart from considerations pertaining to the first scale. The items impute a proneness to isolation (item 15), and emotional instability (item 16), which are rejected by 87 7‘: A H m o H m H (1);) £4 Item <60 mcd o ;:z Liam L > -H (1)1300 (1)0)CU {:08 96> .0094 HQ) Emmi ERG hp :nuh om: 0H ZQV Zdv 1. Disabled persons cannot have a normal social life. 17 157 110 2. It is almost impossible for a disabled person to lead a normal life. 13 82 185 3. You should not expect too much from disabled people. 1A 72 195 A.a Most disabled people worry a great deal. 9 221 A6 5. You have to be careful of what you say when you are with disabled peOple. 19 A5 222 6. Most disabled people feel that they are not as good as other people. - 18 22 2A5 7. Disabled people are often grouchy. 20 16 251 MMR = .765; REP = .866 aItem A scaled negatively; i.e., the agreement scores for this item scaled with the disagreement scores for the other items. Fig. l.-—Seven-item scale of attitudes-toward-disabled- persons, in order of least—to—most favorable, as developed through MSA analysis. 88 ’3 A H m D Item ,3 m3 Sf «50 mm 0 :22 L4h L L > H (1)600 (1)0)60 60E .ocd:> ,ocvcH Ho) Emmi ELIE 544-3 Scan; 360:) 0+4 ZIJV/ z<£~x 1. Disabled people tend to keep to themselves much of the time. 15 236 31 2. Disabled people are more easily upset than non-disabled people. 16 223 AA 3.a It is up to the government to take care of disabled persons. 8 226 Al MMR = .62A; REP = .930 aItem 3 scaled negatively; i.e., the agreement scores for this item scaled with the disagreement scores for the other items. Fig. 2.--Three-item scales of attitudes-toward—dis— abled-persons, in order of least-to-most favorable, as develOped through MSA analysis. the large majority of respondents, coupled with affirmation that the government should provide care. In this short scale, however, the most negative item (i.e., the one most rejected) is related to social isolation, as was the most negative item in the seven—item scale. It is a temptation to speculate that in San Jose isolation and exclusion from society are perceived as particularly abhorent events, and the characterization of a group of persons as isolated or 89 seclusive represents a rather extreme negative attitude toward them. It is also of interest to consider those items not appearing in scales with other items. None of the five items stated positively appeared in a scale (e g., item 5 states: "Disabled people are the same as anyone else"), nor did items appearing to be very complex in wording. The MSA program yields two statistics of importance in the evaluation of item scale characteristics; a coef- ficient of reproducibility (REP), and the minimal marginal reproducibility (MMR). Whereas REP provides an estimate of the accuracy with which a knowledge of a respondent's total score enables the prediction of individual item "pass" or "fail," according to the scale characteristics of the items, MMR ”represents the reproducibility of the matrix using a knowledge of the item proportions only" (Lingoes, 1963, p. 51A). For a given item, the repro— ducibility could never be lower than the prOportion of entries in the larger category. Clearly, if 80% of respondents pass a particular item (or make agreement statements), a prediction of ”pass" for each respondent will recover 80% of the respondent scores. Lingoes has departed from the Guttman procedure in calculating REP (Lingoes, 1963, pp. 50A—509) in a way which takes the MMR into consideration. The MSA program has also set REP at .80, as compared with the .90 recommended by Guttman; 90 however, the Lingoes method is a more conservative approach (Lingoes, 1963, p. 506). The MMR for a set of items can vary between a lower bound of .5 (for items which have a fairly equal proportion of "pass-fail" responses) and an upper bound of 1.00 (for items which have extreme proportions of "pass—fail" responses). A high MMR may indicate spuriously high REP; e.g., items may be so extreme that only a very few people would disagree. What seems desirable, therefore, is a moderate value of MMR and as high a value for REP as can be obtained. Values of REP and MMR are reported in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Further discussion of the practical significance of scale items brought together by MSA will be reserved for the following chapter. The important consideration at this point is the hypothesis of scalability. Submitting the items of Fig. l to criteria suggested by Guttman (1950, pp. 78ff) fails to support the hypothesis for several reasons: first, not enough items appear with approximately equal agree-disagree proportions; i.e., the division of respon- dents was too extreme on too many items, with a probable artificial inflation of the coefficient of reproducibility as the result; second, too many items from the original set failed to scale. Although the criterion for rejecting items is unclear there should be some analytic differences between items which scale and those which do not, or which scale differently. Such differences are not immediately evident. 91 The MSA-derived three—item scale is not only shorter, but has an even more extreme distribution of agree-disagree proportions than the seven—item scale. In discussing the scaling of item subsets in situations wherein the entire item pool fail to scale, Guttman suggests that the item content should be clearly distinct for each set, and that further testing of the item subsets is necessary to show that they do indeed belong to separate universes of con— tent (Guttman, 1950, p. 8A). Although the hypothesis of scalability for the entire set of items (hypothesis la) cannot be accepted, further research and analysis of the MSA derived seven—item scale would appear to be indicated. glib: Traditional-attitudes—toward-education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi—scale. The procedures for testing this hypothesis were as described for hypothesis la. Two scales of three and four items each appeared in the MSA analysis, but because no discriminating item- content differences could be obtained between these two scales they are not reproduced. Hypothesis lb was not confirmed. Since no scales were formed among these traditional—attitudes-toward- education items, further research and analysis would not be eSpecially indicated within the population of the pilot study. 92 H:lg: Progressive attitudes—toward-education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi-scale. The procedures for testing this hypothesis, and the conclusions, were the same as those previously described for hypothesis 1a. MSA ordered six of the ten progressive items as reproduced in Fig. 3, on the following page. Hypothesis 1c was also not confirmed for the entire set of items, but further research would seem advisable in reSpect to the derived six—item scale. Summary of H—l: None of the scale hypotheses were confirmed for all items in the scales; however, MSA yielded sub-scales for attitudes—toward—disabled—persons items, and for progressive—attitudes-toward education items, which were considered useful for further analysis and investigation. H—2: For each attitude scale the plotting of intensity scores against content scores will yield a U-shaped or J— shaped curve. The procedures used in this study for the measurement of intensity have been discussed in Chapter 111. Scale and intensity analysis is dependent upon the scaling of content items, and was attempted with those items indi— cated by MSA to be sub-scales of the attitude-toward- disabled—persons items (Fig. l) and the progressive-attitude— toward-education items (Fig. 2). There are therefore two sub—hypothesis of H-2, one for each of the obtained content 93 Item H w mco o :32 p -a m w 60E m m rim s m LP (30 .r—q 0+4 < D 1. In a democracy, teachers should help students understand not only the meaning of democracy but also the meaning of the ideologies of other political systems. 20 257 10 2. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils. 2 2A9 18 3. The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests and needs as well as by the larger demands of society. 1 2A1 26 A. Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. 7 219 38 5.a Children should be allowed more freedom than they usually get in the execution of learning activities. 17 88 179 6.a Education and educational institu— tions must be sources of social ideas; education must be a social program undergoing continual re— construction. 15 127 1A0 MMR = .695; REP = .853 aItems 5 and 6 scaled negatively; i.e., the disagree- ment scores for these items scaled with the agreement scores for the other items. Fig. 3.--Six-item scale of progressive—attitudes— toward education in order of most—to—least agreement scores, as developed through MSA analysis. 9A scales. No analysis can be attempted for traditional attitude—toward—education—items, because of the absence of an acceptable content scale among these items. The procedure of plotting intensity against content is described in Suchman (1950, pp. 221ff., and particularly, p. 226). It involves transposing total scores for both content and intensity components into percentile scores, then plotting the two percentile distributions, with con— tent percentiles along the ordinate and intensity percen— tiles along the abscissa. Connecting the median intensity scores for each rank should yield a U or J—shaped curve. Tables 1 and 2 show the calculations involved in the plotting of the curves, and Fig. A and Fig. 5 show the resulting graph of the content—intensity relationships. H:2a: H-2 will be confirmed for attitude—toward— disabled—persons items. The intensity components of these items were found to form a quasi—scale with a REP of .876 and a MMR of .802. As can be seen from Fig. A the rela- tionship between content and intensity takes the form of a shallow J-shape with the low point to the left. The usual method of confirmation of the predicted content- intensity relationship is by visual inSpection, and visual inspection appears to confirm hypothesis H-2a. H:2b: H—2 will be confirmed for progressive-attitude- toward—education items. The MSA procedures did not scale the same six items reflecting the intensity component of 95 TABLE l.—-Scale and intensity analysis of attitudes toward disabled persons.32 (Lo) Content Rank (Hi) Intensity Total Cum. Rank 0 l 2 3 A 5 6 Freq. % 7 (Hi) 3 3 5 5 2 1 2 21 100 6 2 10 3 10 2 — — 27 91 A 13 8 5 A 2 — 36 80 15 6 8 9 2 - 2 A2 66 3 20 3A 17 9 1 2 — 83 A9 2 3 11 3 3 1 — - 21 15 l 8 2 2 1 — - - 13 6 0 (Lo) 1 1 1 — - — - 3 1' 56 80 A7 A2 12 5 A 2A6 Total Freq. 23 55 7A 91 96 98 100 Cumulative % 12 39 6A 82 93 97 99 Med. of Content Percentiles A2 A1 50 6A 73 70 80 Med. of Intensity Percentiles aAll percentile figures are rounded to the nearest whole number. 6 The formulas used in computing content and intensity median percentile scores are presented in connection with Table 2. 963 TABLE 2.-—Sca1e and intensity analysis of progressive attitudes toward education. ’ (Lo) Content Rank (Hi) Intensity . Total Cum. Rank 8 1 2 3 A 5 6 Freq. Z 6 — - - 3 A 6 16 29 100 5 — 3 1 A 1A 99 16 58 88 A - — 1 3 2 l9 8 A3 ' 65 3 _ _ _ 8 23 o 2 A2 A8 2 — — — 7 20 8 — 35 33 1 - 1 3 10 3O 1 1 A5 18 o _ - _ _ _ _ _ 0 A 5 35 103 62 A3 252 Total Freq. 0 2 A 17 58 83 100 Cumulative Percent 0 1 2 10 37 70 91 Median of Content Percentiles 0 73 15 33 33 60 80 Median of Intensity Percentiles a O O ~ All percentile figures are rounded to nearest wnole number. 6 . . . . Tne formula for computing the last two rows of tne table ”Median of Content Percentiles” and "Median of Intensity Percentiles,” was derived from Suchman (1950, p. 226), and is as follows: (1) Midpoint of content per cent for content rank n. cumulative % umulative cumulative ” of C”) C % Of ) _ N + content rank n — content rank n—l content rank n-l 7 L. (2) Midpoint of intensity percent for content rank n, = cumulative % of the intensity rank below the median intensity rank for content rank n (i.e., the median intensity rank - 1, for column n) . ‘W _— “r F, ' cumulative freq. cumulative m cumulative % total freq‘) of all intensity of median of med. inten- .+ of col. n. ‘ ranks below the intensity - sity rank - l 2 ‘/ nmd. int. rank rank for for column n for column n column n freq. of median intensity rank, for column n _ ___ e. l As an example, (1) Midpoint of content % for content rank 3, according to formula (1). A + (16) = 33 97 100 (Hi) i 80 dr . o .t . 3 y, 60 .1 4-3 c (1) O —n— s (D m P j? A0 ~~ H U) c (1) _ p c H 20 v (L0) 0 l 1 l 1 l 1 1 l l I V 1 T I T T T T I 1 0 20 A0 60 80 100 (Unfav.) (Fav.) Content Percentile Fig. A.—-Scale and intensity analysis of attitudes toward disabled persons in San Jose, Costa Rica. 98 100 ~ (Hi) F 80 A- 60 A0 Intensity Percentile ----- estimated smoothed curve 20 (LO) 0 4— A .1 A t J O 80 100 (L0 Prog.) (Hi Prog.) Content Percentile R.) 0 Jr.“— O O‘\ C Fig. 5.--Sca1e and intensity analysis of progres— sive attitudes toward education in San Jose, Costa Rica. 99 attitude as it did items reflecting the content component, and the scale properties of these six intensity statements are unknown. Fig. 5 shows the relationship between content and intensity scores as plotted from data presented in Table 2. A somewhat irregular U-shaped curve appears, with the low point pulled well to the left, and a steeper slope to the sides than was noted in Table 1. A discussion of these characteristics for both scales appears in Chapter V. The U—shaped curve evident in Table 2 and portrayed in Fig. 5 is taken as confirmation of hypothesis 2b. Summary of Hypothesis 2. The expected U or J-shaped relationship between content and intensity was obtained for both of the MSA-derived content scales, and the hypothesis was taken as confirmed. Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequencyyand Attitude Scores H—3: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the more favorable the attitude expressed toward disabled persons. In testing this hypothesis, attitude— toward—disabled—persons scores were regarded as the depen- dent variable, and contact frequency scores as the indepen- dent variable, using partial correlation techniques developed for the Michigan State University CDC 3600 Computer (Kiel and Ruble, 1963a, 1963b).1 Attitude-toward—disabled 1According to Kiel and Ruble (1963b) the partial corre— lation formula in the program is from R. L. Gustafson, ”Partial Correlations in Regression Computation," J. of Amer. Stat. Assoc., June, 1961, pp. 363-367. 100 persons scores were taken from the full set of attitude items (rather than only from the seven—item MSA-derived scale) with a possible score range of 0 to 20. Contact frequency was dichotomized into high and low (signifying contact frequencies of more-than—lOO and less-than—lOO) and treated as a continuous variable.1 In this hypothesis, as in all cases where partial correlation was used as a test of relationship, two sets of partial correlation data were com— puted. The first contained all continuous variables in the study (the dependent variable and 30 independent variables, see Appendix A). The second consisted of the dependent variable and 9 independent variables selected from the 30 on the basis of (a) predictive strength as indicated by the 1In respect to the use of broad category data in the correlational analysis (e.g., dichotomized, and up to ten categories from a continuous distribution) there is a ques- tion of the apprOpriateness of the particular statistic used in respect to the number of categories of data. The MSU CDC 3600 Computer CORE Program computes a Pearson product— mement g (Kiel and Ruble, 1963b, p. 5). Peters and Van Voorhis (19A0, pp. 393—399) and Wert, gt al., 195A, pp. 305— 313) indicate that the application of this statistic to 2-to-10 category data yields an underestimate of 3. This underestimate of 3 might be as much as 20 to 25% in the case of dichotomous data with obtained Eli in the range of .15 to .A0, and by less than 5% as the number of categories exceed A (Wert, et al., 195A, p. A29). Thus, in the case of g-order correlations, there are some straight-forward correc- tions available. In the partial correlation situation the complexities of taking into account various such correction factors seemed formidable. It was decided to maintain the advantages of the computer program and to make use of the partial correlation analysis even at some sacrifice of preci— sion; consequently, in the case of those correlation coef— ficients involving broad category data, the testing of sig— nificances will be somewhat more conservative than the alpha level would indicate; i.e., the underestimation of g has the same overall effect as an increase in the alpha level. 101 first multiple regression analysis; (b) elimination of highly intercorrelated variables in the matrix of zero- order correlations (e.g., several of the scales and indices were highly enough intercorrelated to introduce excessive rounding error into the multiple—regression computation (this problem is discussed by Kiel and Ruble, 1963a, pp. 33-3A); and (c) to retain variables necessary for the testing of hypotheses.1 Partial correlations were done for the total group, for males and females, and for the various occupational groups. The significance level selected for hypothesis testing was .025, and .001 levels are also reported.2 Figures are for the one—tailed test in all cases of direc— tional hypothesis testing.3 1The variables retained included the dependent attitude-toward—disabled—persons variable, and independent variables of (a) benevolence value, (b) leadership, (0) conformity values, (d) education attitude and intensity scores, (e) income, (f) satisfaction with local health services, (g) satisfaction with local government, and (h) frequency of contact with handicapped persons. 2Had the distributions of the variables been better known, the level of alpha would have been set at the con- ventional .05. The more conservative .025 requirement seemed appropriate under the present circumstances. Values of 3 for the two levels of significance are taken from Table 7 in Edwards (1960, p. 362). 3Although the hypothesis is expressed in the research form, it is, of course, the null form, either one- or two— tailed, which is actually accepted or rejected. Rejection of the null hypothesis should be understood when the research hypothesis is reported as accepted. 102 The foregoing discussion applies to all analyses involving partial correlations as used in this study and will be referred to as necessary. Hypothesis 3 was not confirmed for the entire sample, nor for any of the sub—groups. In the case of those em- ployed in the field of rehabilitation and special education, a significant negative correlation was obtained between contact frequency and attitude, as noted in Table 3. Contact frequency was the only significant predictor of attitude in this group. TABLE 3.—-Partia1 correlation between frequency of contact with handicapped persons and criterion measure (attitude- toward-disabled-persons scores) for rehabilitation and special education group.a Partial p for g for p N df P < .005 P < .025 —.388 57 A8 .361 .279 aIndependent variables are as stated in footnote one, page 101. H—A: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensipy statements of the attitude-toward-disabledepersons scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable pp unfavorable. This hypothesis was not confirmed for the total group nor for any of the sub—groups. Measurement 103 was by means of zero—order correlations between dichotomized contact frequency scores and total scores on the intensity component of the attitude—toward—disabled—persons items. Summapy of contact—attitude variables.—- Neither of the included hypotheses was confirmed. Confirmation in respect to the particular occupational group directly in- volved with handicapped persons reversed the predicted relationship. This would appear a special case requiring further examination and will be discussed in the following chapter. Hypotheses Related to Value and Attitude Scores H—5: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score low in acceptance of disabledypersons. This hypothesis was tested by means of partial correlation, in which need for power and con- trol over others ("Leadership" value of Gordon Value Survey) is treated as the independent variable. The discussion of partial correlation in H-3 applies equally here. The hypothesis was confirmed for the total group, and for the sub-group of "urban youth." Table A indicates the relationship between these variables according to the various groupings of respondents. The size of the various correlation coefficients suggests that even though statis— tical significance was obtained for the total group, only .meeeeaceoe so Haste mme. was he eetewcaemame .Ammm .o nommav mohmzom :fl m canoe Echo coxmp mm mocmowmwcmflm wo pmmp omHHMpamco msp pom mam mocmoflmcoo mo Ho>ma mmo. esp pom m mo mmoam> 6:90 .mmCHQSOAw pomUQOQmmm mo mCOHmH>Ho mumOHocH mocfiammoc: omppomn .HQH owns 20 moo cacopooe cfl econom mm who mcaomfipm> pccocmomocfl 639m saw. me mm mea.- mma. ema.u eoaemaeeeo .taaeoz swam ems. mom mam oma. eao.- meo.- eoeeeaseoo .taaeoz son -wmmq ..... mw----mm-------mmmq----------mmmmq---------wmmq ..... wmmmmmmmmmm-qmwwmma-mmmm sea. sea ems ewe. amo.- moa.- Hmaecteamtm .eaaeoz 264 -mqu ..... mmm---mmm------mmmq ........... mama--------wmmmqn ................. mmmmw-mmmmm mma. am we ems. zoo. eao.u asses Hesse -wwmq-----mm----wm ....... mmmqu .......... mmmqn--------mmmq------------mmmmmmm-mmmwmmmmm cam. mm mm Hes. Hes. mea.- eespeoo acetate 0mm. at me awe. Ame. mHH.- eeeeeoo coama> mam. mm as seem.- Hmo.- amo.- someeoo oz -mmmq-----mm----mm-------wemqn----------wmmq---------mmmwn-------------------mmmmmmmm- a HmCOHmmmMOLm :om. on a: mmm. mas.- maa.u tsoeeH zoo mam. we em omo.u weo.- moo. easemeeem Hmaeeam s coapeeaaaeaeem Has. eon mas zoo. amn.- eas.- acoemeeem -mmmq-----wmw---mmm------wmmq ........... Nemq---------mmman----------------------mmmemm mmfl. :HH mas owe. mao.- mmo.- was: -wmmq ..... mmm---mwm------mmmq-----------mwmq--------mwmmqn ....................... wmmmm Hmmo. v m ce 2 m sanctum m Hewetea m sweeten steH mom a mocmao>mcmm COHQchoomm dfinmsmommq .mpcmocoomcn e0 mwcfiosopw macasm> 0p mcflopooom Ammpoom mcomsmolomanmmHUIULMZOp lmfldpwppmv COHhmpHLO mflp USN wmdflmkr Umpomflwm C®®BU®Q .mmCOH.umH®.H..HOU HMHPLMQIIJ~ HAN—mg”? 105 a small prOportion of the variance of the attitude-toward— disabled—persons scores can be explained through reference to leadership values (33 = .016). H-6: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score low in acceptance of disabled persons. This hypothesis was tested by means of partial correlation, in which need for recognition and achievement ("Recognition" value of Gordon Value Survey) is treated as the independent variable and attitudes-toward— disabled-persons as the dependent variable. The discussion of partial correlation in H-3 applies equally here. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Table A indicates that for only one of the sub-groups (high residential mobility) did the value of p exceed that necessary for sig-' nificance at the .025 level of confidence, and this reversed the predicted direction of relationship. H-7: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of disabled persons. This hypothesis was tested by means of partial correlation, in which need to help others, to be generous ("Benevolence" value of Gordon Value Survey), is treated as the independent variable and attitudes—toward— disabled-persons as the dependent variable. The discussion of partial correlation in H—3 applies equally here. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Table A indicates that for only one of the sub-groups (those reporting "no 106 contact" with disabled persons) did the value of p exceed that necessary for significance at the .025 level of con— fidence, and this reversed the predicted direction of relationship. Summapy of Value—Attitude Variables.—-Only one of the three hypotheses of relationship between attitude-toward— disability—scores and theoretically relevant interpersonal value variables was confirmed for the total group at the .025 level of significance. "Leadership” value was found to be negatively related to attitude—toward-disabled—persons scores (-.l25). A way of interpreting this in respect to the guiding theoretical orientation relating attitude to value, is to conclude that attitudes toward disabled persons were not found to be highly instrumental to the maintenance of certain specified interpersonal values. An alternative explanation is that the attitude-toward—disabled- persons items, or value items, or both, were inadequate (in respect to reliability and validity) to bring out relation- ships which may actually exist. A discussion of these possible explanations of the findings will be deferred to the following chapter. Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Persons Working Directly with Disabled Persons (The Rehabilitation and Special Education Gropp) H—8: The rehabilitation and special education group will have a higher mean attitude-toward-disabled-persons score than will persons in other occupational categories. 107 This hypothesis was tested by means of analysis of variance using the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer pro- gram for unequal replications (Kenworthy, 1963), and Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Edwards, 1960, pp. 136ff), as extended for unequal replications by Kramer (1956). Table 5 reports mean scores, standard deviations, and rankings of means for each group. Table 6 summarizes the analysis of variance calculations. Table 7 summarizes calculations for the Multiple Range Test. TABLE 5.—-Means and standard deviations of attitude-toward- disabled—persons scores for the four occupational categories. Standard Occupational Category N Mean Score Deviation R (rehabilitation and special education) 57 8.017 2.2A0 E (educators) 113 7.522 2.228 L (low income-~labor and secretarial) A9 6.857 2.5A1 B (business and professional) A8 6.979 2.037 Ranking of means: R (8.02) > E (7.52) > B (6.98) > L (6.86) As indicated from Table 6 the F statistic for the analysis of variance test was significant at the .05 level, which suggests that the sub-group means do not come from a common population; however, this does not support the hypothesis in reSpect to the rehabilitation and Special 108 TABLE 6.—-Analysis of variance of attitude-toward-disabled- persons scores for the four occupatinal categories. Source of Sum of Mean Variation Squares d.f. Square F Between groups A6.3A6 3 15.AA9 3.027* Within groups 13A2.156 263 5.103 Total 1388.502 *Significant at .05 level. education group taken alone. It is necessary to consider the mean of this group in relation to each of the other means to conclude that this specific hypothesis may be supported. For this a test of multiple mean comparisons is desirable. A discussion of Duncan's test is found in Edwards (1960, pp. l36—1A0). The effect of the application of this test is to increase the level of the 3 statistic required for a given level of significance between two means as additional means are included in the intervening range. This can be noted by the changing values of R'p of Table 7. The data support the hypothesis in respect to two of the occupational groupings. Mean differences in attitude- toward-disabled-persons scores are significant at the .05 level between "rehabilitation and special education" and "low income" groupings, and between "rehabilitation and 109 TABLE 7.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of occupational categories for attitude—toward—disabled- persons scores. Range of Means (p) 2 3 A df=263 Studentized ranges for 5% test (zp)a 2.77 2.92 3.02 . 7 = b R p (R SZp,263) 6.257 6.596 6.822 Mean differencesC YE - K (p = A) 8.A22* KR KB (p = 3) 7.A9A* XE — x: (p = 3) A.322 XR - XL (p = 2) 3.A20 XE — XB (p = 2) 3.502 — — (p = 2) .849 XB ‘ XL *Significant at .05 level of confidence. aTaken from Edwards (1960, p. 373). bs = the square root of the error mean square of the analysis of variance of Table 6. s = / 5.103 = 2.259 p = the range of means (2, 3, and A). CMean differences of columns 2, 3, and A have been transformed into the equivalent of p—scores for multiple means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R'p value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer (1956) is: 2 n n (X - X ) ———1——E—:> sz , error d.f. of A. of V. y z n + n p 110 special education” and "business and professional" groupings, but not between "rehabilitation and special education" and "educator” groupings. While the hypothesis was not sup- ported in respect to differences with the "educator" grouping, it should be noted that the pply significant differences among the four means were obtained in analyses involving rehabilitation and Special education scores. Hypothesis 8 is considered to be confirmed. H—9: Persons working directlyfiwith disabled persons (rehabilitation and special education group) will have a higher mean score than will_persons in other occupational categories in respect to the value of Benevolence,L and lower mean scores in reSpect to the values of Leadership and Recognition. H—9a: Hypothesis 9 will be supported in respect to the value of Benevolence. Table 8 indicates means, standard deviation, and mean rankings for Benevolence value scores according to the four occupational categories. Except for the "low income" grouping, the difference among means is obviously negligible, and neither is the ranking of means consistent with that predicted. The hypothesis is therefore not supported. As a matter of general interest, an analysis-of—variance for the four means was not significant at the .05 level of confidence (3 = 1.7Al). 111 TABLE 8.--Means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Benevolence value scores according to the four occupational categories. Standard Occupational Categories N Mean Score Deviation R (rehabilitation and special education) 57 19.789 A.597 E (educators) 113 19.832 5.505 L (low income; labor and secretarial) A9 17.816 6.310 B (business and professional) A8 19.396 5.026 Ranking of means: E (19.832) » R (19.79) > B (19.AO) 2 L (17.82). H-9b: Hypothesis 9 will be supported in reSpect to the value of Recognition. Table 9 indicates means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Recognition value scores TABLE 9.--Means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Recognition value scores according to the four occupational categories. Standard Occupational Categtories N Mean Score Deviation R (rehabilitation and special education) 57 8.8A2 3.877 E (educators) 113 9.655 3.652 L (low income) A9 10.122 3.603 B (business and professional) A8 9.1A6 3.320 Ranking of means: L (10.12) > E (9.65) > B (9.15) > R (8.8A) 112 according to the occupational categories. Mean rankings are consistent with the hypothesis prediction in that the R group has a lower mean score for this value than other occupational groups. Table 10 reports the analysis-of- variance foundings. TABLE 10.--Analysis—of—variance of Recognition value scores for the four occupational categories. Source of Sum of Mean Variation Squares d.f. Square F Between groups 52.229 3 l7.A09 1.317 Within groups 3A76.363 263 13.218 Total 3582.392 The obtained F of 1.317 is not significant at the .05 level of condifence; therefore, this hypothesis is not con- firmed. §:93: Hypothesis 9 will be supported in respect to the value of Leadership. Table 11 indicates means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Leadership value scores according to the occupational categories. Mean rankings are consistent with the hypothesis prediction in that the R group has a lower mean score for this value than other occupational groups. Table 12 reports the analysis—of- variance findings. 113 TABLE 11.——Means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Leadership value scores according to the four occupational categories. Standard Occupational Categories N Mean Score Deviation R (rehabilitation and Special education) 57 10.A91 5.75A E (educators) 113 11.000 5.0AA L (low income) A9 10.816 5.110 B (business and professional) A8 1A.166 5.397 Ranking of means: B (1A.l7) > E (11.00) > L (10.82) v R (10.A9) TABLE l2.--Ana1ysis-of-variance of Leadership value scores for the four occupational categories. Source of Sum of Mean Variation Squares d.f. Square F Between groups AA9.067 3 1A9.689 5.37A* Within groups 7326.259 263 37.856 Total 7775.326 266 “Significant at .05 level of confidence (also signifi- cant at .01, which requires an F value of 3.87). 11A The significant F—statistic supports the hypothesis that the sub-group means do not come from a common popula- tion; however, it is still necessary to consider the relationships between pairs of means to conclude which of the group means is the primary contributor to the analysis. An inspection of Table 11 would suggest that the high mean score of the B (business, professional) group is of primary importance, with the other three means relatively close together. The use of the Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, as modified by Kramer (Edwards, 1960, p. 136; Kramer, 1956) for unequal replications Should support this inspec— tional impression. This test was discussed in the testing of Hypothesis 8. Table 13 reports findings of the Multiple Range Test. As expected, the mean for group B (business, professional) departs significantly at the .05 level from all other groups. Even though the R group (rehabilitation and special education) mean score is in the predicted direction, it does not contribute Significantly to the variance of the F test, and the hypothesis has not been confirmed. Summary of Hypothesis 9 analysis: This hypothesis was not confirmed for any of the three selected values (Benevolence, Recognition, and Leadership). Although the means for the R group were below the other three means for values of Recognition and Leadership as predicted, further analysis indicated that this difference was not a 115 TABLE 13.——Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of occupational categories for Leadership value scores. Range of Means (p) 2 3 A df=263 Studentized ranges for 5% test(Zp)a 2.77 2.92 3.02 t . = b R p (R szp,263) 1A.620 15.A12 15.9A0 Mean differencesC is — KR (p = A) 26.533* 7B - IL (p = 3) 23.316* XE - XR (p = 3) 3.517 XB - XE (p = 2) 20.A2l* XE - XL (p = 2) 1.196 XL - XR (p = 2) 1.02A *Significant at .05 level of confidence. aTaken from Edwards (1960, p. 373). bs = the square root of the error mean square of the analysis of variance of Table 12. s = V27.856 = 5.278 CMean differences of columns 2, 3, and A have been transformed into the equivalent of p—scores for multiple means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R' value of the same column. This was accomplished by use of the rationale supplied by Kramer (1956), and the formula: Z :> szp, error d.f. of anal. of var.(=rtp) 116 significant one. A finding of interest was the significant elevation of mean score for Leadership value of the B (busi- ness, professional) group over the mean scores for each of the other occupational groups. H-lO: Persons working in the area of rehabilitation and special education (R gropp) will have higher mean scores in progressive-attitudes—toward—education than will persons in other occupational categories. Table 1A indicates means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for progressive—attitudeS-toward-education scores according to the occupational categories. TABLE 1A.-—Means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for progressive~attitude-toward—education scores according to the four occupational categories. _L Standard Occupational Categories N Mean Score Deviation R (rehabilitation and special education) 57 5.68A 1.627 E (educators) 113 6.767 1.950 L (low income) A9 6.102 1.971 B (business, professional) A8 5.792 1.999 Ranking of means: E (6-77) > L (6.10) > B (5~79) > R (5.68) 117 Contrary to the hypothesis, the R group have the lowest mean ranking, with the highest mean ranking for the E group.l Hypothesis 10 has not been supported. Summary of hypotheses related to characteristics of persons working directly with disabled_persons.-—Hypothesis 8, which predicted higher (more accepting) attitude—toward- disabled—persons scores for the R (rehabilitation and special education) group was supported. Hypotheses 9 and 10, related to value characteristics and progressive edu- cation attitudes, were not supported, although mean scores for values of Recognition and Leadership (H-9b, H-9c) were below the means of the other three occupational groups as predicted. Of interest, but not bearing directly on the hypotheses, were findings that the B (business and professional) group were significantly higher than other occupational groups in Leadership value, and that the E (educator) group were higher than other groups in respect to progressive-attitudes-toward—education and lowest in reSpect to traditional-attitudes-toward-education. 1As a matter of interest, the E group obtained the lowest mean score on measures of traditional—attitudes- toward-education. Since F—values of analysis of variance tests for both progressive and traditional education attitude scales were significant beyond the .01 level, there would be reason to suggest that educators in this sample are more accepting of progressive educational ideas, more rejecting of traditional educational ideas than other occupational groups. 118 Characteristics of the Sample: Mean Differences Between Males and Females, and Amopg the Various Occupational Groupings, for Selected Attitudp;L Value;L and Demogrgphic Characteristics This section considers two major sub—divisions of the total respondent group: sex and occupation. For conven- ience of computer programming, the F statistic was used for all testing of mean differences, even though differences between two means are usually tested by the p statistic. The results are the same in either case (Edwards, 1960, p. 1A6). The results must be interpreted with caution, partly for reasons already considered in respect to sampling and test administration, but partly also because of problems encountered in testing interactions between sex and occupation. The occupational categories are un- equal, and sex distribution within categories is unequal. The testing of interaction effects with unequal replications in each cell is not only a questionable statistical pro- cedure, but in this case would be impossible because of the sex-linked character of some of the occupational categories. This is indicated in Table 15. For those variables in which sex differences are obtained, the sex composition of the occupational groupings would be an important factor in the analysis of occupational differences. The converse would, of course, also hold, Since the respondents are the same in each case, but only classified differently. “Thus, in a given case where both occupational and sex classifica— tions show significant F values, it may not be possible to 119 TABLE l5.-—Distribution of respondents according to sex and occupational characteristics. A UH I - )1. ECU (t5 0 '0 (DO 035: p 3 mt: Ex: 0 H'CS'O Slaw Oct) (0-H r—qum o 0..) mm q—(cU p-A C“ (DU) .0 ~ me: Ho :0) r—( coco 0010 o H‘H CU >4 .COQ) :Sr-ia) 3(1) U10 43 a) GJHQ. 'ULIJC/l om 3:4 0 m (n+sm m\/ FJV’ mcn B Male 1A 32 Al 36 123 Female A3 81 8 l2 1AA Total 5' 113 A9 A8 267 determine whether the differences occur independently, or are obtained for one or the other classifications because of the interactions involved. There are Six sub—divisions to this section, the first three concerned with various attitude, value, and demographic variables according to the male—female classification, the second three concerned with the same variables according to occupational classification. Differences in Mean Attitude Scores Between Male and Female Respondents Three variables are considered here: those attitude scores relating to disabled persons (attitude-toward- disabled-persons), to traditionalism in education (tradi- tional-attitudes—toward-education), and to progressivism in education (progressive—attitudes-toward-education). 120 Table 16 reports findings in respect to attitude scores. For attitude—toward—disabled-persons scores, the F statistic was not significant, indicating that there is no evidence that males and females differ in their marking of these attitude items.1 TABLE 16.——Comparisons of mean differences, standard deviations, and F statistics in respect to three attitude variables, for 123 males and 1AA females. Standard F Variable Sex Mean Deviation Statistic Attitudes Male 7.219 2.253 1.559 toward Female 7.569 2.307 disabled persons Total 7.A08 2.285 Traditional Male 6.366 1.757 13.7A9** attitudes Female 5.500 2.017 toward education Total 5.899 1.9A7 Progressive Male 5.85A 1.953 9.2A1** attitudes Female 6.569 1.887 toward education Total 6.2A0 1.9A7 *For significance at the .05 level of confidence, and l and 265 degrees of freedom, an F value of 3.88 is required. “*For significance at the .01 level of confidence, for l and 265 degrees of freedom, an F value of 6.75 is required. 1Analysis of variance findings are summarized in Appendix A. 121 Table 16 indicates a difference between males and females in respect to attitudes toward education. Males are significantly higher in traditionalism scores, and significantly lower in progressivism scores. This finding must be interpreted in view of the fact that 81 of the 1AA women in the sample (56.2%) were directly involved in teaching in the regular classroom, and approximately 15 of the rehabilitation and special education group were teaching in special classes; thus, about two-thirds of the women in the sample were involved in education in one form or another. Further discussion of this finding will, therefore, be reserved until data for occupational differ— ences has been presented. Differences in Mean Value Scores Between Male and Female Reppondents Table 17 presents data for the six value variables of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960), of Benevolence, Recognition, Support, Conformity, Independence, and Leadership, according to male and female classification. Three of the six value variables differed signifi- cantly according to sex classification: males obtained lower Benevolence scores, and higher scores for Indepen- dence and Leadership, than the females. Previous research reported by Gordon (1960, 1963) indicates what has been found among other nationalities in respect to sex 122 TABLE l7.——Comparison of mean differences, standard devia— tions, and F statistics in respect to six value variables, for 123 males and 1AA females. Standard F Variable Sex Mean Deviation Statistic Benevolence Male 18.236 5.757 10.AOA** Value Female 20.237 A.939 Total 19.375 5 A25 Recognition Male 9.813 3.703 1 96A Value Female 9.187 3.577 __________________ TEEEluufiiiZé---“__3._§l_2.____________-_ Support Male 13.098 A A51 1.301 Value Female 13 701 A 190 Total 13 A23 A.31A Conformity Male 18.878 A.096 1.291 Value Female 19.A72 A.393 Total 19.198 261 Independence Male 16.983 5.9A6 3.97A* Value Female 15.6A6 5.021 Total 16 A97 Leadership Male 12.A72 5.698 8.762** Value Female 10.535 A.99A Total 11.A27 5 A06 “For significance at the .05 level of confidence, for 1 and 265 degrees of freedom, an F value of 3.88 is required. “*For significance at the .01 level of confidence, for l and 265 degrees of freedom, an F value of 6.75 is required. 123 differences. This data has been put into the form of mean difference scores for comparison with the Costa Rican data. Table 18 indicates that the Costa Rican findings are generally consistent with findings in other countries in respect to value differences between the sexes. Females are consistently higher than males in respect to Benevolence Value (although for Japanese College Students the difference is not Significant at the .01 level), and males are consis— tently higher than females in respect to Leadership Value. This seems a remarkable finding considering variations that would be expected to occur in translation, differences in group characteristics within cultures, and value variations expected to occur between cultures. This would appear to indicate that values measured by the Benevolence and Leadership scales reflect fundamental sex role differences cutting across a variety of cultural variations. Of interest also are findings in respect to values of Support and Conformity, for which females were generally higher in the studies reported, but not significantly so for the Costa Rican Sample. A possible explanation for the Support Value findings is suggested by the characteristics of the groups comprising each sample. In those groups for which females scored significantly higher than males for Support Value, the sample was a general one, presumably both employed and unemployed females; however, for those groups for which the differences were not significant, the 12A TABLE l8.-—Sex difference scores on various national groups on sub—scales of the Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1963). Group B(1) R(2) S(3) C(A) 1(5) L(6) Indian Teachers(7) -3.6** 2.3** 0.3 —3.8** -0.2 A.6** M=50, F=50, N=100 Japanese College -0.5 0.0 -1.A** 0.5 0.1 1.A** Students (7) M=188, F=285,N=A73 U.S. High School -3.1** 0.0 -0.2 —3.2** 0.8 5.7** Teachers (7) M=25, F=28, N=53 U.S. General Adults -A.6** 1.3 -3.2**—3.2** 1.2 8.2** (1963) (8) M=2l3, F=212, N=A25 U.S. General Adults -A.8** 0.3 -2.9**-1.9** 3.l**5.9** (1960) (8) ' M=1075, F=7A6, N=l821 Costa Rica Sample 2.0** 0.6 -0.6 -0.6 1.A* 2.0** (196A) M=123, F=1AA, N=267 *Significant at the .05 level of confidence. **Significant at the .01 level of confidence. (1) B = Benevolence (2) R = Recognition (3) S = Support (A) C = Conformity (5) I = Independence (6) L = Leadership (7) Taken from Gordon (SRA) Research Briefs Supplement (1963). (8) Taken from Gordon (SRA) Manual (1960). + = male higher than female; - = male lower than female. 125 females were all employed. This would suggest that Support needs may be related more to actual dependence on others for support than to sex role. The relatively small difference in Conformity Value scores between males and females in Costa Rica does not lend itself to ready explanation, since males would be expected to have much more freedom to depart from social custom and expectation than females and consequently to place less value on conformity. The occupational charac— teristics of the sample, and the relatively high educa- tional and income level of the females (see following sec- tion) indicate, however, that the women in this study were far from characteristic of Costa Rican women in general; i.e., they have already departed from "norms" for Costa Rica women to some extent, and consequently may be expected to value conformity less than most women in Costa Rica. To support these inferences would require a much more repre- sentative sample than was actually obtained in Costa Rica, and one in which both employed and unemployed women were included. Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Between Male and Female Respondents Table 19 presents data for three demographic variables of education, income, and age. Since the data for education and income were collected in coded form (see Appendix E, 126 TABLE 19.--Comparisons of mean differences, standard deviations, and F statistics in reSpect to three demo- graphic variables, for 123 males and 1AA females. Standard F Variable Sex Mean Deviation Statistic Education Male A.5A5 2.089 39.622** Female 5.896 1.393 Total 5.273 1 871 Income Male 9.780 A.907 2.65A Female 8.92A 3 670 Total 9.318 A 297 Age Male 35.382 11.980 1.77A Female 33.153 1A.895 Total 3A.180 13.650 **For significance at the .01 level of confidence, for 1 and 265 degrees of freedom, an F value of 6.75 is required. 127 Code Book, section 3, p. A) an interpretation is necessary. The education data, in particular, was not collected in a very satisfactory form for analysis and interpretation. Each score represents a range of grades completed, and these intervals are somewhat irregular. Table 20 refers to the interpretation of education scores. TABLE 20.—-lnterpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment. Score Interpretation Range of Interval 1. Less than A years completed - 3 inclusive 2. From A to 6 years completed A - 6 inclusive 3. From 7 to 9 years completed 7 - 9 inclusive A. From 10 to 11 years completed 10 — ll inclusivea 5. Some college or university l2 — 15 inclusive 6. College or university degreeb l6 — ? 7. Post-degree studyb --- 8. Advanced degreesb -—— aThe range of 10—11 is more meaningful in Costa Rica than the range of 10—12. There is no equivalent of high school grade 12 as in the United States. bThe last three "scores” obviously reflect qualita- tive differences. It could be argued, however, that the score numbers would at least satisfy the criteria of an ordinal scale, in that when advanced degrees have been completed, it is usual that all of the preceding steps have also been completed. Using this table as reference, it can be seen that the mean coded score for males of A.5 indicates that the "average" male in the sample has completed the 11th (terminal) year 128 of secondary school and may have spent some time in a university, or in some other educational facility in advance of high school training (e.g., a business school), whereas the "average" female, with a mean coded score of 5.90, falls within the "college or university degree" interval. While precise figures are not available for comparison, these figures emphasize the educational bias of the sample as a whole, and probably also in respect to differences in relative educational attainment between the sexes. Hauch (1963, p. 20) has estimated that in 1950 no country in Latin America had a higher—than-fourth-grade average educational level, but suggested that if data were currently available it would probably show a "somewhat more favorable situation." In respect to male and female differences, Table 19 indicates also that in addition to holding a higher overall educational level, women were less variable in attainment than the men. This seems reasonable in consideration of the fact that most of the women were teachers or held other intermediate-level professional positions whereas more males were represented at the occupational extremes; e.g., doctors and business men on the one hand, and manual workers on the other. It is this latter group which seems mainly respon- sible for lowering the average educational level for men significantly below that of the women of the sample, as can be inferred from the sex distributions reported in Table 15. 129 Income was also coded, and Table 21 provides a trans- lation into colones and dollars. It was originally decided that total family income would be more meaningful datum to relate to other variables than individual income, primarily because there was g priori evidence that women in education, and in rehabilitation and special education, in Latin America may sometimes become employed to supplement family income or to fulfill personal, rather than financial, need. The income, then, may not reflect the status or general living conditions of the individual. Respondents were, therefore, asked to report the total gross income of their immediate household. The income differences between males and females were not significant, but are nevertheless of interest. The income average score for the entire sample of 9,318 is equivalent to approximately l2,A80 colones, or 1,877 dollars. The average income for males was 13,170 colones, or 1,980 dollars, and for females was 11,880 colones, or 1,77A dollars. It should be noted that the method of reporting income would tend to obscure differences in income among males and females of similar social status and occupation because it was family income that was requested. Age data were recorded in raw form; i.e., people were simply asked to record their ages, and computations were done on actual age entries. Although males were 130 TABLE 2l.--Interpretation of income scores in terms of colones and of dollars.a Range of Equivalent Score Range of Colon Interval Dollar Intervalb 1. less than 1A99 colones less than 22A dollars 2. 1500 thru 2999 " 225 thru A50 " 3- 3000 AA99 " A51 676 " A. A500 5999 " 677 901 " 5. 6000 7A99 ” 902 1127 " 6. 7500 8999 " 1128 1352 " 7. 9000 10A99 " 1353 1578 ” 8. 10500 11999 ” 1579 180A " 9. 12000 13A99 " 1805 2029 " 10. 13500 1A999 " 2030 2255 " 11. 15000 17999 " 2256 2705 " 12. 18000 20999 " 2705 3157 " 13. 21000 2AA99 " 3158 2683 " 1A. 2A500 26999 " 268A A059 " 15. 27000 29999 " A060 A510 " 16. 30000 35999 " A511 5262 " 17. 35000 39999 " 5263 601A " 18. A0000 and over 6015 and over aThe author is indebed to Dr. Frederick B. Waisanen and the Programa lnteramericano de Informacion Popular (PIIP) of San Jose, Costa Rica, for coding of colones. bDollar calculations are based on a ratio of 6.65 colones to the dollar, rounded to the nearest dollar. 131 approximately two years older than females (35.38 years average for males and 33.15 years average for females) the differences were not significant. The average age for the entire sample was 3A.l8 years. Differences Between Mean Attitude Scores Among the Various Occupational Groups The findings in respect to attitude score differences among occupational groups were reported and discussed in the previous section relating to the testing of hypotheses. Hypothesis 8 considered differences in attitudes toward disabled persons, and Hypothesis 10 considered differences in attitudes toward education. Differences Between Mean Value Scores Among the Various Occupational Groups Three of the value variables were considered in the testing of hypotheses: those of Benevolence, Leadership, and Recognition. Values of Support, Conformity, and Inde- pendence have yet to be considered. Table 22 summarized the data for these three values. Significant mean value differences were obtained among the occupational categories for values of Support and Independence, and in Hypothesis 9 it was found that Leadership mean scores also differed significantly among occupational groups. In terms of those values in which differences were obtained, the occupational groups might be described as follws: 132 TABLE 22.——Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and F statistics in respect to three value variables, and four occupational categories. Standard Variable Occupationa N Mean Deviation F Support value R 57 13.018 A.369 3.129* E 113 lA.2A8 A.A71 L A8 13.286 3.651 B A9 12.10A A.209 Total 267 13.A23 A 31A Conformity value R 57 19.000 5 571 AAA E 113 19 A87 3 723 L A8 18 69A 3.98A B A9 19.271 A.00A Total 267 19 198 A 261 Independence R 57 17.1A0 5.1A6 A.936** value E 113 15 203 A.822 L A8 18 A29 5.601 B A9 15.500 6.5A9 Total 267 16 262 5 601 aR = rehabilitation and special education group. B = educators. L = low income group. B = business and professional group. *For significance at the .05 level of confidence, for 3 and 263 degrees of freedom, an F value of 2.6A is required. “*For significance at the .01 level of confidence, for 3 and 263 degrees of freedom, an F value of 3.87 is required. 133 1. The "rehabilitation and special education" group did not appear to contribute greatly to the variance of any of the value variables. In terms of interpersonal value differences, they were the most neutral of the occupational groups. 2. The "educator" group were high in Support values (indicating need for interpersonal support) and low in Independence values (indicating low im— portance attached to independent behavior). 3. The ”business and professional” group were ap- parently the most deviant of all groups in respect to interpersonal values: they placed a high value on Leadership behavior, were the lowest of the groups in need for Support from others, and were also relatively low in Independence values. Independence and Leadership values also showed sig- nificant sex differences, with males showing greater preference for these values than did the females. There remains the possibility that occupational differences actually reflect sex differences. Although sex-occupation interactions could not be tested, an inspection of the data suggests that occupational differences in these values were not due primarily to sex differences. As noted in Table 15, groups R and E were mainly female, groups L and B mainly male. If sex differences were primary, groups R and E RA) 1: '-J should show similar value patterns, different from groups L and B. This was not the case. For Independence value both the E and B groups were low, the L and R groups high; for Support value, the B group was low, and E group high, and the L and R group intermediate; for Leadership, the B group was high, the R, E, and L groups clustered together. An alternate explanation is that the role and posi- tion behavior expectancies that accompany certain occupa- tional classifications are significant enough determiners of interpersonal values to over—ride sex differences, even though sex-occupation interactions would probably have been obtained had the design been appropriate for such analysis. Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Among the Various Occupational Groups Table 23 presents data for three demographic variables of education, income, and age. The interpretation of coded data for education and income is discussed on pages 125 to 132 and Tables 20 and 21. The analysis of variance test was significant for education and income, but not for age. An inSpection of Table 23 indicates that the group designated as "low income" is markedly below the other groups for both education and income. The fact that there were approxi- mately five times as many males as females in the low income group would substantially influence findings in respect to sex differences for income and education. 135 i TABLE 23.-—Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and F statistics in respect to three demographic variables for four occupational categories. a Standard F Variable Occupation N Mean Deviation Statistic Education R 57 5.930 1.A86 60.A62** E 113 5.965 1.202 L A9 2.796 1.A57 B A8 5.396 1.865 Total 267 5 273 1 871 Income R 57 11.035 3.703 27.037** E 113 9 133 3 529 L A9 5 A69 2.A59 B A8 11.6A6 5.261 Total 267 9 319 A.297 Ase R 57 31.579 7.753 2 110 E 113 3A.513 1A.8ll L A9 32.776 1A 385 B A8 37.917 1A 970 Total 267 3A.180 13.650 8R = rehabilitation and special education group. E = educators. L = low income group. B = business and professional group. HFor significance at the .01 level of confidence, for 3 and 263 degrees of freedom, an F value of 3.87 is required. 136 The coded mean scores for education give some indica- tion of the average level of education attained in the various groups. The average person in the R and E groups will have attended college and attained a degree of some kind: the average person in the B group will have attended college but will not have attained a degree. The average person in the L group will have exceeded 6 years of school (including technical training) but will not have gone beyond 9 years of school. Thus, even the lowest educa- tional group of the study would appear to be somewhat beyond the average adult educational level expected for Costa Rica as a whole, although they would perhaps be consistent with the average within the urban center of San Jose.1 The coded mean scores for income are readily trans- latable into colones and dollars. The average income for the R group would be approximately 15,090 colones, or 2,269 dollars; for the E group, 12,195 colones, or 1,83A dollars; for the L group, 6,705 colones, or 1,008 dollars; and for the B group, 16,950 colones, or 2,5A9 dollars. It must be kept in mind that this represents total family income. 1Data for education and income are by self—report, and may, therefore, be somewhat inflated by "social desirability" factors. Lacking objective external criteria, the extent or presence of a directional bias cannot be assessed. 137 It is also relevant that the method of coding has the effect of reducing the weighting of extreme income figures by forcing them into ranks, so that the "mean" score ob- tained is close to that which would have been obtained if a median had been calculated. Since a number of the busi— ness men, doctors, and teachers reported family incomes which were affluent even by North American standards, the difference between the L group and the other groups would have been even more extreme than they appear had calcula- tions been done on the uncoded data. Since the average teacher in San Jose earns A00 to 500 colones per month (less than $100.00, or less than $1,200 per year), it would appear that most teachers in this sample have additional income within the family or supplement teaching income in other ways. The rehabilitation group included doctors, admin— istrators, and a number of teachers who had received specialist training in Costa Rica and abroad (mainly in Mexico, the United States, and Europe). The relatively high average level of reported income appears consistent with these facts. 138 Characteristics of the Sample: Predictors of Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scores for the Total Group, Between Males and Females, and for the Various Occupational Groupingp The previous section has indicated some differences among the respondents when categorized according to sex and occupation. This section examines within each grouping the patterns of prediction to the criterion variable of attitude toward disability. It was assumed that the various attitude, value, and demographic characteristics that differed within each group might result in different determinants of attitudes toward the handicapped. Table 2A reports partial and multiple correlations between selected predictorsl and the criterion variable of "attitudes toward disabled person" (ATDP) for the total group and for the sub-groups of male and female. For the total group, only three of the variables (representing the "best" predictors of the original 30) are significantly correlated with ATDP scores, and these would appear to be of marginal practical significance. Leadership value and attitude intensity correlated negatively with attitude- toward—disabled-persons scores and income correlated posi- tively. The multiple correlation for the total group indicates that only about 5% of the variance of attitude- toward-disabled-person scores can be accounted for by the combined predictors (.23 squared = .0529). 1The procedures used in selecting the predictor vari- ables and a discussion of the partial correlation techniques used are found in this chapter on pages 98-100. 139 TABLE 2A.—-Mu1tip1e and partial correlations between selected predictors and the criteria (ATDP scores) for total group and sex. Indepen— Partial Correlations dent Total 39X Variable Variable Description Group Male Female 7 Benevolence .06A .080 .035 8 Leadership -.l25* -.098 —.133 A Conformity —.059 .062 —.108 1A Attitude Intensity —.l5l* -.161 .030 20 Income .1A0* .111 .167* 33 Health Services Satisfaction -.113 —.329** .008 17 Contact, H. P. Freq. —.050 —.03A —.07A 32 Government Satisfac. -.06A .1AA —.177* Multiple Correlation R=.2853 R=.3912 R=.3101 ** , ** * DF Corrected Multiple Correla. R=.2301 R=.3059 R=.2063 N 267 123 1AA DF 258 11A 135 P . .01 .160 .239 .216 P < .05 .125 .183 .16A “Significant at .05. 1”Significant at .01. 1A0 A comparison of male and female groupings indicates that there are differences between these groups. For males only one variable, ”satisfaction with health services," is significantly related to attitude—toward—disabled-perSons scores. The suggestion is that among males the greater the dissatisfaction with existing health facilities, the more likely is there to be a favorable attitude toward disabled persons. Although in the statistical sense, "health services satisfaction" is the predictor, in common—sense interpre— tation it seems more likely that the more accepting the attitude is toward persons with handicaps, the greater is likely to be the feeling that more should be done for them medically, and consequently that health services are not doing their job. It is also interesting to note that for males this single predictor accounts for more of the variance of attitude—toward-disabled—persons scores than the multiple R of the combined predictors (again using 33 as a rough indicator, ”health services satisfaction" would account for about 11% of the attitude-toward—disabled—persons variance, the multiple R for about 9.5%). Among females, income is positively related to atti- tude-toward-disabled-persons scores, and satisfaction with local government is negatively related. Both of these are relatively low relationships, accounting for about 3% of the variance of attitude—toward-disabled—persons scores. 1A1 The multiple R is also low, accounting for about A.A% of the attitude—toward-disabled-persons variance. An inter— esting Speculation, which might warrant further exploration, is that there may be a tendency for males to see problems of disability as primarily medical in nature, whereas females may see them more in terms of social relationships. Table 25 reports partial and multiple correlations for the four occupational groupings of respondents. The "educator" group were similar to the ”female" group pre- viously discussed, but this is not unexpected because they contribute over half (56%) of the females in the total sample (81 of 1AA total). The only significant predictor in this group was "satisfaction with the government," which contributed approximately 6.5% to the variance of the attitude-toward-disabled-persons scores, a slightly greater per cent than the multiple R of the combined variables (5.3%). In the ”rehabilitation and special education" (R) group, which was also predominantly female (A3 females, 1A males) there was quite a different pattern than in the "educator" group. In the R group, the only significant predictor was "amount of contact with disabled," which was negatively related to attitude—toward-disabled-persons scores. Only in this group which has a special relation— ship to disabled persons was this a significant predictor of attitude-toward—disabled—persons scores, and the .Ho. co ocooacacwamee .mo. om ocooacwcwamg mom. :om. mam. Hmfi. mo. v a men. mam. Hem. saw. as. v a mm on we sea on w: a: 5m MHH z 0000. somam. amomm. soamm. m cocoottoo so mace. seam. moms. swam. m soaooaottoo oHoHoHoz 9_ moo. swam. ope. esmcm.u coaooocmaoom .osoo mm m1 can. moo. eemmm.u mac.) .ootm ..a.m .oosocoo as ooa.u mom.- oma.u sco.- .oaoom coastom coast: mm ems. cmo. Lao.- mos. oEoocH om com“- omo.- :om.n omo. shampoosH ooooaooa an aso.- moo.) aso,- sso.u soaspoccoo : cmo.u mafi.u moo. can.) oaoosooooq m mco.- mmm- omo.- zoo. cocoao>ooom a mamCOHmmmmopm oEoocH .om.ocom whoa coapafimomom oaomflhm> oaomflpm> oom whoofimom 304 w.omzom (modem poooooomooH mcowpmampsoo Hmeme .mHmQOHmmmoopo one .mmfismomsoom com whosooma .maoomo coaumcooc Hmfiomom ohm coepmofiaaomoos .msopmosom poo Amopoom moe¢v manoufiso cop who mLOpoHocso oopomaom opospoo moofiomflossoo Hmflpsmo ocm oaofipaozlu.mm mqmge 1A3 direction of relationship was reversed from what had been predicted in the hypotheses. There are two possible explanations for this finding which will be discussed more completely in the following chapter; one concerns the nature and adequacy of the attitude-toward—disabled—persons items as a measuring device, the other concerns the possible bases for changes in attitude that might occur through frequent contact with a group perceived as being of lower status. In the "low income” group another interesting com— parison can be made with "educators” (and with "females"), in that the only significant predictor for this group is "satisfaction with the government," but the direction of relationship is reversed; i e., for those within this grouping there is a tendency for satisfaction with local government to be associated with favorable attitudes toward the disabled. That this is not primarily a sex dif- ference is shown by the failure of this variable to attain significance among ”males" and among the ”professional" occupational grouping, which is 67% male. The interpreta- tion of this relationship is unclear, but further emphasizes differences between the "low income” group and other groups in the sample. The "business and professional" group had no variables which were significantly related to the attitude-toward- disabled-persons criterion, and the multiple R of the com- bined variables was zero. 1AA Characteristics of the Sample: Factor Analysis of All Variables for the Total Group Factor analysis is an attempt to find the smallest num- ber of factors, or dimensions, that will account for the intercorrelations among a set of variables. Factor analysis was attempted on the data of the study, not because it was felt that the factor pattern would necessarily reveal any underlying "traits"-—the data seemed too diverse for that-- but because it was hoped that it might bring a better under- standing of the relationship among the variables and some idea of the "value" of different variables for use in further studies. It was hoped this might later help with reduction or reorganization of variables. The factor analyses were done on the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer according to procedures de- scribed by DeJonge and Sim (196A). This program yields both quartimax and varimax factor pattern solutions. As noted by Harman (1960, p. 301) the quartimax solution emphasizes the simplification of each row, or variable, of the matrix, whereas the varimax solution places greater emphasis on simplification of the column, or factor, of the matrix. Both solutions were done, compared by inspec- tion, and were found to yield fundamentally the same results. The data in this section are from the quartimax solution. Both quartimax and varimax involve principal axes and orthogonal rotational solutions. An orthogonal solution 1A5 leads to factors, or dimensions, which are independent of each other; i.e., the variables within a factor are corre- lated with the factor to varying degrees, but as a group are uncorrelated with the other factors. The communalities reported are Guttman communali- ties (Harman, 1960, pp. 85—86), which involve the use of the "squared multiple correlation (SMC) of each variable with the remaining p — 1 observed variables" (Harman, 1960, pp. 89-90). The complete factor pattern is shown in Table 26. Table 27 indicates those variables considered to be highly enough correlated with the factor to be of use in interpre- tation.1 The following discussion of the seven factors is drawn primarily from the information summarized in Table 27. Two levels of "importance” of a variable to a factor are shown, selected primarily on pragmatic grounds. Most "first loadings” (i e., the highest correlation for a variable with any factor) fell above .50, whereas no second loadings fell above .50. Correlations falling 1The question of how "important" a particular item or variable is to a given factor is a very complex one. Harman (1960, pp. 3A7ff) has pointed out that although the correlation of the item with the factor is one measure (and presumably, the Significance may be tested as for any zero—order correlation coefficient), what is really wanted is the partial-correlation of the item with the factor, taking into account the relation of the item to all the other items of the factor. The procedure for computing this partial correlation is so involved as to be beyond the scope of this study. 1A6 .LOpomm sow wosooos pmocwsmt osm. so. oo.) ss.) ms.) ,sm.) oo. om. .stossoo .wssom .om mos. oo. oo. oo.) so. oo.) oo. so. .ooo copsoo .om oos os.) so. so.) ss.) os. oo. oo. .oom soosooz .sm sms. ss.) mo.) ss.) ss.) oo. so.) os. .msoom .o.>oo .om sss. so.) oo.) mo. oo. ms.) so.) coo. .osooo poops .om mms. oo. oo.) ms. mo. so. oo.) mo. .ooo moocsmsm .sm oss. ss.) so. os.) as. oo. ms. oo. .oso soocoo .mm som. so. os.) so. ss.) oo. oo.) mo.) soocom .mm smo. oo. om.) oo.) so.) os. om.) ms.) sosooooom .sm sos. so. oo.) so. os. ms. os. mo.) .osocso .s.osoo .om ssm. ms.) oo.) os.) oo. oo.) mm. ms. .osooss .s_hpoa .os sms. mo. amo.) so.) os.) mo. oo. oo. sassosoopoo coo .os mms. om. mm.) as.) ss.) om.) ms. om. .oss .wssom .ss omo. mo. mo.) oo.) oo.) *os. oo.) oo. ) osoocs .os osm. ms.) mo. mo.) oo. ms. ms. so. ems .os oms. mo. oo ) oo.) oo.) ss. mo. ss.) oooocoo .ootm .ss oos. ms.) so.) so.) mo.) os. ) oo. ms.) ooeosoo .otoo .ms sos. oo. ms.) mo. so. oo.) goo. so. .oss .mops .om .os oso. ms ms.) so. oo. mo.) oo. mo.) .soo .moao .om .ss sos. os oo.) oo ) so. so. oo. oo. .ocs .ooss .om .os sss. sm.) mo.) os ) oo.) oo. mo. oo. .coo .oots .om .o sso. oo.) ms.) so.) os.) oo.) ms. so. sososoocs .a.m .o oss. mm. mo. so.) mo. mo. os.) ss.) osoocoo.o.m .s mss. coo.) mm.) os. om.) so.) os.) om.) oeso> s .o ooo. om. ss. ) sss.) so.) so.) os. mo. ooss> m .m oms. ms. os. mo. om.) so.) os. oo.) ooso> s .s moo. os. ) ms.) sm. oo. so. ms.) oo. osso> m .m sso. oo.) so.. so.) om.) oo. oo.) oo. pesos o .m oos. om. oo. mo.) *so. so.) so. so.) osso> o .s we s o o s m m s mosoosto> mcspssmcoEEoo whosomm .ssom u 2V ooosw sopOp mop com mosomHsm> oooomsom mm pom momxsmom sonommll.om mqm omLLMumoD .osomssm> msop mom scoops m ops: oospmsmssoo smoowsme msm.) mosm> cocoocoooocs s omo. mosm> :osuscwoomm *m ooo. ooso> osooooo *s soooocmqmo sm>osgm¢ .s scoops mom.) poopooo..omse.cospoosom m som.) moompsooss mzoswssom *ms ssm. .oooo.moomsom opossusocmm gs sss. ow< ems oos.) eosooocmsoom ocoectosoo om sms. cosooooom mm mom. cospmooom *mm mwo. souoom *sm msm.) ossm> ossmsmomms WM) sos. msooCH *ms Nussmoospmm .s honomm so>os osEOCOoMIOHQOW .m sonomm mom.) cessposom o omm.) mosm> osomsoomos m msm. pooocoo .smoospsomse .osom so smm. mosm> cocooomomoos s moo. poopcoo .m>smmmsw0hm .ozom ass mom.) cocmpsooss Emssmcomsom *sm mss.spsoomoosnmoomsmm omoomosocmm em smm.) cosmSMMHo osomssooomsom *mm mmw. musmCooos .smoospsomse .ozom *os omo.) Emssmoomsom coo smspo¢ som com. musmcopos .o>smmoswosm .osom *ms moossmooosso mmsm concomom moouspp< .m scoops soCOmsmmEsusmCOmcom .o Lepomm mom. cosmopooss mooswsscm ms mom. sosscossoo mooswssom *sm sms. oesoomMmspmm accesso>oo *mm som.cosoommmsomm moos>pom smosomz *mm sos. pesos osooooooos o soo. cosooocmsooo soocom .os omo. mosm> cocoocooooos as mmo. ecspommmspmm mmoCsmom tom sso.) oass; csosssooooo *m wmo. oosuommmsumm oopzoo *om mss.) mssm> moooso>ooom em moo. oosoommmsumm Looms *sm cocoooomooos casoo< .m snoomm cosoossm>m oesoopspmos .s sonomm oosp cosu )msmssoo scooom )msossoo Looomm scoops scoomm .moousowms moscssooo mo smoco cs omumss .moosmcmEso Louomm woscsmoo os moompsooEs zsoesso so moosposospoo scoomo)osomssm> ompomsomll.sm msm<9 1A8 below .30, on the other hand, seemed to lend little to the interpretation of a factor. Level 1, therefore, consists of variable-factor correlations greater than .50, level 2 consists of variable-factor correlations falling between .30 and .50. In general, the factors appear to provide information relating to problems of question format, as well as giving dimensionality to the content. Factor 1 is determined primarily by a set of variables relating to how well various local institutions are doing their job (see Appendix B, Personal Questionnaire, Question 33). The intercorrelations among these variables may be spuriously high due simply to the layout of the question, which placed the institutions in a column down the page, scoring each by placing a check in one of the following columns. Respondents frequently checked all institutions positively or all negatively without much apparent reflec- tion; however, the fact that "religious conformity" (Appendix B, Question A0) and "religious importance" (Appendix B, Question 21) also help to define the factor, and were expressed in a different form and on different pages of the questionnaire, suggests that more than response bias was operating. Factor 1 has been tentatively labelled as "institutional evaluation" and would appear to reflect a tendency toward a generalized positive or generalized nega- tive evaluation of principal social institutions. 1A9 Factor 2 reveals the same kinds of format problems that were commented upon in factor 1, but would appear to do so to an even more extreme degree. On logical grounds there is no basis for bringing all of the attitude scales together in one factor on the basis of item content. What these items do have in common, however, is the format in which they were presented (see Appendix C). Each item goresented a statement followed by four numbered response alternatives, which in the case of the three intensity Scales progressed from (a) "not at all certain" to (d) "very certain," and in the case of the content scales progressed from (a) "strongly disagree" to (d) "strongly agree." It is noteworthy that the intensity scales have the highest intercorrelations. Each intensity item ques— tion followed a content statement, and asked (in the Spanish translation): "about how certain are you of your answer to this question?" This seemed to encourage a some— what mechanical and set way of responding. Also noteworthy is the absence of the "attitude-toward—disabled—persons" (ATDP) scale in the factor. This was consistently the first instrument presented to the reSpondents (see "methodology" section, page 77 above), and was the only instrument in which statements were expressed in both positive and negative form; thus, scoring for fifteen of the items was reversed, for the remaining five of the items not reversed. Both the initial presentation and the reversals would tend to consid- erably reduce the effect of systematic response bias. 150 Based on these observations, factor two would appear to reflect the "trait," if it can be called that, to respond to a certain type of item patterning in a systematic way. Since the item content presented hard questions--to the nature of which many of the respondents had previously given little or no attention—- attempting to cope with the content of the items may have produced considerable uncertainty. A way of resolving this uncertainty, of restructuring the situation, would be to respond to the format by being con- ' or consistently other— sistently "agreeable" and "certain,' wise. Although the underlying need may be the reduction of ambiguity and tension, the factor has been designated "attitude response bias," as a term which is consistent with the pattern of variables. The factor would appear to reveal more about the instruments than it does about the respon- dents. Factor 3 was defined primarily by variables of "income” and "rental," secondarily by variables of "education" and "age," thus pulling together the basic descriptive (demo- graphic) data included in the analysis. This is the first factor which does not appear to have been markedly influ- enced by item format. "Income“ (Appendix B, Question 15) was written in by the respondent (and later coded), as was "rental" (Appendix B, Question 32). "Age" (Appendix B, Question 9) was also written by the respondent (and analyzed in raw form). "Education" (Appendix B, Question 28) was 151 pre—coded and answered by checking the proper category. The items were dispersed throughout the questionnaire and were different in format, and responses were therefore apparently elicited more by item content than item form. The highest loadings for "income" and "rental" would suggest that this factor is primarily economic, but the secondary loading of education and age suggests that "social-economic level" might be an acceptable, though cautious, factor description. This factor was negatively correlated with the variable of "religious importance," (Appendix B, Question 21), the highest loading for this particular variable on any factor. Two other religious variables were also negatively related to the factor (significantly so, although below the criterion for inclu— sion in Table 26). These were ”religious conformity" (-.272) and "satisfaction with the church) (—.223). These latter variables would appear to be associated with the factor rather than providing primary defining character- istics. Factor A is defined primarily by two of the variables of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix D): Support and Recognition. According to Gordon (1960, p. 3), the Support Value is defined as: "Being treated with understanding, receiving encouragement from other people, being treated with kindness and consideration." The Recog- nition Value is defined as: "Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition." What would appear to be common to both of these values is the need for a favorable (supportive, attentive) response from others. Negatively, the factor was defined by the value of Independence. Taking these variables together, a plausable name for the factor might be "approval dependenpy." Factor 5 is defined positively by the value of "Independence" and negatively by the values of "Benevolence” and "Conformity." A secondary loading of the factor is contributed by ”Leadership" value. Gordon (1960, p. 3) suggests about these values that Independence means "free- dom to do what one wants without the interference of others; Conformity refers to "proper" behavior, following rules, being socially correct; Benvolence refers to helping others, sharing, "helping the unfortunate, being generous"; Leadership to having power, control, authority. The factor, therefore, would be positively characterized by independence of action, negatively by constriction of action, either through conformity or benevolent involve- ment. Consistent with this, the factor might be called "action independence." A further comment on these two value variables seems necessary; that is, that both factors A and 5 were deter— mined at least in part by the forced-choice format of the value instrument. Table 28 compares intercorrelations 153 .Am .Q .oomsv ooosoo 809mm osomsoomos sm.) ss.) mocmso>m2om oo. ms.) oo. ss.) cocoUConoos mo. os.) so.) oo.) sm.) om.) sososcmooom om.) so. oo.) oo.) ms.) om. om.) om.) sosssoocoo om.) os.) oo.) om. so.) oo.) os.) mo.) os. oo.) otooosm s m s m o s m s m o m osso> mpmo oosm opmoo mopmo ooosoo .mosm momoo as oposmsoo mmzsm> smoomsoosmoos ooozpmo moosomsossoosopos com .coomoo so oopsooms moosm> smoomsoosmoos coozpoo macspMsmLLOOLopos mo oomssmoEoO Imm had not been established with the present format, VVhich is forced-choice. In respect to the attitude scales, tiles relatively low Guttman reproducibility coefficients (Euod consequently low reliability), plus the fact that Orlly a portion of the items were found to scale, suggests tllat some improvement in item content and construction 167 should be attempted. Similar data is not available for the value items, but comparisons with data obtained on the value scales in respect to sex differences (see Table 18, page 123) suggests that the value instrument has a measure of predictive validity. In order to bring the value instrument properly into the following discussion, which deals primarily with scaling problems, it should be noted that in the discussion irl the preceding chapter dealing with the outcomes of the fkictor analysis, it was suggested that the forced—choice .fCDrmat of the value scale produced factors which reflected trle format rather than response patterns. A possible atbproach to this problem would be to alter the format so tklat the various value items were responded to individually b5’ the respondent and then submitted to scale analysis, much 518 'was done with the attitude items. This would eliminate 'tfle interdependence among the various scales that are 1Imposed upon them by the present format. Whether this cOuld be an effective procedure would need to be estab— ILi.shed empirically. Some of the characteristics of the ATDP scale, in r‘eJIation to other variables in this study, are informative fOrthe evaluation of the ATDP items as an effective inStrument. The first characteristic has already been diJScussed in relation to scale properties of the ATDP itRams. Only seven of the items were found to scale and 168 the reproducibility of these seven items was low (REP equals .866). Second, it terms of predictive validity, it was found that mean scores for the various occupational groups differed significantly according to the predicted direction in Hypothesis 8. It was found that the rehabilitation and special education group were most accepting of the occupa- tional groups; that is, they received the highest average ATDP scores. The Duncan's Multiple Range Test indicated that the rehabilitation and Special education group differed significantly from the "low-occupation" and from the "busi— ness and professional" groups, but not from the group of "educators." Since both the "rehabilitation and special education” group and the "educators” group were predomin- antly female, and the other groups predominantly males, the occupational differences could conceivably reflect a sex difference; however, males and females did not differ significantly in ATDP scores. Consequently, it would appear that the differences obtained between the different occupational groups is primarily an occupationally—related characteristic. Considering the two previous characteristics, therefore, it might be suggested that although the repro- ducability (and consequently the reliability) of the scale is relatively low, and the items as constituted do not appear to represent a homogeneous or unidimensional struc- ture, there is some evidence of predictive validity in respect to the attitude characteristics assumed beforehand to be held by the R and SE group. 169 Another important consideration in respect to the ATDP items is the extent to which they correlated with other items which had been expected, and were predicted to be, related to the ATDP items as a criterion variable. The establishment of hypotheses of correlational relationships between the ATDP scale and predictors such as interpersonal ‘values and contact frequency reflected no particularly rlovel theoretical orientations; rather (as indicated in (Shapter 11, pages 22-A1), it has been reasonably well eastablished that both extent of inter-group contact and \ralue orientation should be related to attitude. As was noted in Hypothesis 3, page 102, the \Iariable "contact frequency" was a significant predictor of tshe criterion ATDP measure pply for the rehabilitation and ESpecial education group, and the relationship was the Ioeverse of what had been predicted. Although the rehabili- tzation and special education groups tend to hold the most Eiccepting attitudes toward handicapped persons (i.e., have 51 liigher mean ATDP score), it was found that within this Eglcoup the more contact that people have had with handicapped IDEEPSOHS, the less likely they are to score high on the ATDP irlstrument. There would appear to be two probable explana— 13ions for the reversal of the prediction relating to contact fWFequency and ATDP scores. One possible interpretation is that within a setting where people are occupationally 1rl‘volved with handicapped persons there is a tendency for 170 people to become less favorably disposed toward them as they are more frequently involved with them. A possible theore- tical support of this point of view is related to Allport's observations regarding the formation of negative attitudes when contact is with persons who are perceived as being inferior (see Chapter II, page 30). Another point of View, however, is that the attitude instrument may be measuring only a limited portion of the attitude universe related to handicapped persons. A number of ATDP items would appear to reflect somewhat sterotyped statements about handicapped persons, so that an individual with a direct and prolonged working relationship with handi- capped persons might appear less accepting on a "stereotype" level and have more difficulty responding than someone whose relationships were less frequent and perhaps more superficial. Another way of stating this is that it might be possible for an individual to score relatively low on items reflect- ing stereotyped but unrealistic conceptions of handicapped persons, but still be willing to work with them and enjoy the contact. According to our original definition of attitude as a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something (Chapter I, page 7), a set of statements which are primarily concerned with certain ”stereotyped" personal character— istic of handicapped persons reflect only a limited portion of the attitude universe. Regardless of which of these two 171 points of View are the correct interpetation, it would seem advisable to expand the range of items employed to encompass those aspects of the totality of behavior which have been defined as representing the attitude under consideration. Some final comments on the characteristics of the ATDP items are suggested by the factor analysis data. In the factor analysis for the total group the ATDP scale appears as a significant loading only in the last extracted factor (factor 7, rationality). Even in this factor, the ATDP variable has a relatively low correlation with the factor (.317) and forms a secondary loading. It would appear to be associated with the factor rather than provid— ing a definition for the factor content (see Table 26, page 1A6, and Table 27, page 1A7). Also, as can be seen from Table 26. the communality of the ATDP item (variable 7, H.P. content) is among the lowest of all the variables studied (.170). The communality statistic gives an estimate of the variance which this variable shares with all the other variables in the factor analysis (see Chapter IV, page 1A5). This is a further indication that a knowledge of ATDP scores is of little use in predicting or understanding the scores of any of the other variables of the study, nor are other variables of practical significance in predicting ATDP scores. This does not necessarily mean that a high communality is indicative of a good variable, or that a low communality is 172 necessarily indicative of a "poor" variable, except in terms of the prediction or understanding of the other variables through various intercorrelations with each other. A variable could have a very low communality with other vari- ables in the study but still have a high degree of predic— tion to an outside criterion, and on the other hand, could have a high communality with the other variables in the study, but have little significance in terms of prediction to an outside criterion. The two attitude-toward-education scales, and the three intensity scales, are a case in point. These scales taken together determine factor 2 but have negligible correlations on other factors. Communalities among these variables (numbered 8 through 12 on Table 26, page 1A6) are relatively high, ranging from .A7 to .76. However, it has been shown that factor 2 probably reflects a reSponse to item format rather than a response to item content. The high communalities, therefore, reflect the intercorrelations among these variables caused by item format (see example, the discussion of factor 2, pages 1A9-150). These various comments on the characteristics of the ATDP scale can be summarized by saying that although the mean scores for the different occupational groups differed significantly in the predicted direction, the difference was relatively small, and as a criterion variable the ATDP items showed little relationship to other variables of the study. 173 The ATDP scale, as employed in this study, is not a satisfactory criterion measure. The range of items appears too narrow and the individual items too complex for many of the respondents. Education items were also relatively complex. Further research should aim toward the develop- ment of attitude instruments which fall more properly within the definition of attitude used in this study. The items in such an instrument would need to represent the entire universe of content in respect to the attitude object, whether this be "handicapped persons" or "educa— tion." A broad universe of content in respect to an attitude object would not necessarily be expected to be unidimensional or homogeneous. Rather, it might be com— posed of component areas related to various ways in which people can behave toward the object of the attitude. Such a component approach, although reported without a specific rationale for the structuring, was employed by Whiteman and Luckoff (1962) in a study of attitudes toward blind- ness (see Chapter 11, pages 39-A0). Instead of comparing total attitude scores toward the blind with attitude scores toward other types of physical disability, Whiteman and Luckoff compared attitudes within particular components of the attitude universe. A rationale for a component design for an attitude iEélE-“A specific rationale for explicating the components within an attitude universe has been suggested by Foa (1958) 17A and used subsequently by both Foa (1963) and Guttman (1959) in the design of research, and also in the analysis of research done by other investigators (Guttman 1959, 1961). This theory suggests that the attitude universe of the item content can be substructured into components which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. The substructur— ing of a universe into components facilitates a sampling of items within each of the derived components, and also enables the prediction of relationships between various components of the attitude universe. It should also provide a set of clearly defined component areas for cross-national comparisons. In an analysis of research by Basthide and van den Berghe (1957), Guttman (1959) has proposed that in respect to intergroup behavior there are three necessary facetsl which may be combined according to definite procedures to determine the component structure of the attitude universe: £22222 C. Referent's A. Subject's Intergroup Behavior B. Referent Behavior (I) 2 al belief bl subject's group cl comparative (l) 5 a2 overt action b2 subject himself c2 interaction [—4 LL] 1The term facet was proposed by Guttman as a less ambiguous substitute for Fisher's "factor." He has defined it as ”a set that is a component of a Cartesian product." (Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Psycho- logy, Brussels, 1957.) 175 One element from each facet must be represented in any given statement, and these statements can be grouped into components of the attitude universe by a multiplica— tion of the facets A x B x C, yielding 2 x 2 x 2 combina— tions of elements, or 8 semantic components in all; e.g., (l) a b (2) a b c (8) a b It can be 1 1 01’ l 1 2 2 2 02' seen that components (1) and (2) have 2 elements in common (a b1) and one different (c and c2), whereas components 1 1 (1) and (8) have no elements in common. Contiguity theory predicts that responses to questions in component (1) will be more similar to component (2) than they will be to com- ponent (8) because they have more identical elements. This closer similarity should be reflected in a higher correla— tional relationship between the components. This predicted relationship has been obtained in various studies of inter- group behavior (Foa, 1958, 1963; Guttman, 1959, 1961). An analysis of intergroup behavior possibilities suggests that the facets proposed by Guttman could be expanded. A more inclusive set of facets and their elements could be stated as follows: Facets w o m ) — o ~£4 (D p 430:4 +30 )s) p o o$.o O-H om (D (1) moo-s o > n cos p s £4L > r760 Cor-4(1) 00) (D (Dwfd .01: >>bo> CU) Cs (Hui: '50) °U)O(l) '00) -(l) °<1)C2C1) pmm spammm mm mam. mmm. 3mm. mmw. concomMmemm pcmectm>oo mm :mm. mam. mom. awe. coapomumfipmm gonad Hm mmm. mmo. com. Hem. coupomcmflpmm mmmcfimsm om Hem. omm.a was” HHN.H cofipomomflumm Hoogom mm Hmm. saz.m osm.a emfi.m Hmpcmm mm mam.a mam.m mmo.m m:m.: cofipmosem em ::N.H mes.m OH©.H 0:2.m nonmscufla macapwamm Hmcompmm om mom. Jam. mas. mmm. mocmptoaeH muonpmamm decompmm mm one.a oam.m mma.a mm:.m & .mQOHpmHmm Hmcomtmm am mmo. mom.m mmo.a omm.m mocmptoaeH .COHwHHmm mm osm.m :mo.w 000.: ome.m msoocH om mam.:u mma.mm Hma.uu mmm.mm mm< ma sss. owe. zma. mom. socmsamtm ..m .m .pompcoo an Han. mam. mas. cam. HmCOmtmm ..m.m .pompcoo ma :Hm.m Hom.m mom.m mmo.o spamcmch ..wopm .20Hpmosem 3H swm.a mom.© mmm.g :mm.m pcmscoo ..wopm .COHpmosem ma mmm.m mmu.m :mm.m ooo.m asfimcmch ..nmte .COHpmozem NH afio.m oom.m ~m~.o oom.o catacoo ..emte .coapmosem HH mmm.m mom.a can.m mam.s spfimcmch .m .m OH mom.m mom.s mmm.m omm.s pumpcoo .m .m a 3mm.: mmm.oa mam.m Ha:.mfi ansmpmemmq m amm.z a:m.om wma.m mmm.ma mommao>msmm a omo.m w:m.ma mzm.m amm.oa mocmezmamecH o ssm.m mwa.m mos.m mam.m conpficwoomm m mam.: msz.ma mmo.: mam.ma spastoccoo : oma.s Hos.mfi umz.s moo.mfi msHm> ptogasm m mCOHpmH>mQ memos mCOHumw>mQ memo: COHpoHpome Ambasz Utmecmpm enmecmpm mapmfltm> .mmamsmm paw mmHmE mo masonmodm hog mmapmfipw> coapopfigo go mcofipmfi>oo ppmpcmpm pew mammzll.om mqm. . .H I .As. H 4.; I 0 . u a. .4 r n..\ . IL ‘ old . . . . _n - .I. n1. . .. SOC. mzfi. mam. nww. m: a . ~33. mum. was. cow. mam. 30:. 3...: . car. 00:. new. 37.7. . kits. 0.» 6.. .23.. «11.. 2.1T. _MVN I ._ F N.\n PIW u 1.. l. i. . N w I. ‘*.U \u. _ H0 . .1 ._ _ . l, -. 4 .. 1.. .q a. .. .1 . . < . .. 1.. . t .. u ,4. 4. r H H c x. I,“ L“ H .r-x .J‘ ifl‘OOr—ir—47‘\. rooms :r r'v w‘. ( to UN m H xom) '\ -~/ 9 ' ~~a kJ no, [x cm .3 :r r4 r4 f" u: ”)6"; "w 7" I "“1 CO 1‘- ”,‘4 Li". (.0 F~ [‘~ [\ f\ If 7! ‘1" t—n x CD 2.5 . a mm; . NHN.H mo? . .3 mm: 73.0 .m mm .o H .qm _ .‘Yj 7*. 9 ~. \L) C‘~ «(1.7 \C' > \0 =3qu com—4 f I... c . n‘ .o: r a .\ 'N r, ‘ t W .I44 mswwda upoafi .. chog:oo Abomgnfl i a.)a». u . ,cofiomam J n xozmoponH (J_. M >.- a W macaw. .3. meh. .w . . A . 4 . H u a 7.. . .tuoL; ..ugLi a .Jv .¢ ¢. .L w. ..ot;m ......-:.. .w . wahnl U. .3. .. L .11 .J , \Jq...’ o +.__ .:.) u ..L.\._ .k I. .44 . r. . .x ‘ Li; .. ‘.. ._ . n ., v I s.) . .p y. K . N 1“; (V) (V) F") I V} :3 "a1 0": {'V‘, .‘\ (- woo L-d LS»- .‘\\ "l:’ \ 'f‘ -D C) "F: 7' r‘1 H :‘y ’ (flfi fl :1} .rl L1} .11 C) C.) '51: Vi '3: LL 228 r» .1 < 12.02Lnrw c.:ramn<«c:m1. cud: uomucco Lo >occsrvcm m:0mhmm venomofloca: spa: uoaucoo anaemgoasHufimcompom Amhaefinmv pompcoo 90 came mfimom sufimcmucH mewmmopwohm maaom mpamcoucH me aficagoumoq snag» mucoflo>mcwm toam> moccucoqoccH tzamb :ofiuacmooom toamb mpHELomcoo mzamh uuooazm mpommono Hmcofiumosouo Min 17 15 14 13 12 10 '1 urn-w 1.. . . .. . .7... . .:....a. . .:.... ~ ...._.1 a..............(..«...,.............. .. l o I I I I I I 0 . . . . . . . .1 é .... «J. . L 8 7:321. :15 32 10.3.-. ,C 7.2.2,)...16 2 1331:..0 CIR...» C 2.1..» .0 sunoaaauoc‘b 0 «4:10 0. Q I I I O I I I I I O . . . . . . __.. . _ 1.1 7 3?..(81u88017303910 1.006526318108000 210000000000002AU I I I I I O O I I I I I I D . _ ._ . . a“. 6 l 6,5.“577030891770 00!:«22148014251760 020001110100000 I I O I I I I O I I I I I __.-.. 1 _ 5 1 93731710881750 07-0163QIOB78650 00000001152750 I I I I I 0 I I I I I O .. ._ 1 _ .4 1 nun/0001816886260 8.010147aLwHSTs1730 1010000013.)..“0 _ .. .. 1 . 3 1 53750188542750 27139150512300 011000.0101630 I I t O I O . .. a. 1 . 2 1 .2 33.1. 116.67“ 960 9.50.3}? quaaeo 9.20100000120 . . . . . . . _ . . .. 1 o . 1 1 2087093700 2..){0flflH/‘Llcnba n.1nUnxfl..01O10 _.. ..1 . O 1 6801471280 77. 231693 0.1103. «U AUfib AH. aU . _ . .11 _ 9 076:.179F330 7. DO ,0 ah. ,)._ ..(,.. In U4 10.32.004.340 . . . . . c . o 1 “2; m0 L... 3, my :1 1... «I. 2,. 3L 3.. DJ . . . u _ _ 1 _ 5 O .1» w. F d 7. 1J4 .14 .H U. at .4 . . . . . .1 _ MM ,..I,. :0 mm. 7.-~ .U Ala {v U . . . _ 1 . 2.. nu ml 7. 0 HM b _ .1 _ 9.. nu r”. r!» .1 1 variables of the study. A 1 O-order correlations for a f‘ A A L: 1x .--Matr “LT: “ v1. 3.: TA- {01.47. .:....) . . .... .... ...;7. w ... :u .1 2:1... h .i :14. .a 1:112:45... . . if ”.7 a UL. .1..:C...;..; T... .. ...... .:.: p71; SELL. ....30«b~ .1“... O mw EL: 2;-.7. 11x0:7.x...1‘111mu‘v._ .........p‘-.\. ......T....2,ZL .1. 1.1.150 . ~ r . L .t. a o o o v u . u o - . . . n o u . u . c a . n o . u _ _ . _ _ . . . _ . . _ . .CFC 4I347rc Van'l‘u .3; «J ..< 373 3.4 «J r35: 7 ....U 1; ”\J «L I). 3.79/0 6F» :10 . .t 16 ... 133.43.,u ‘15.,“ ft x.» 3).}. u. in ..-; .m.Qv,buLL .. m 3 “a: y 6 210011103509.00:19.01.13;..L01v114. 1 3:922:32 one... . . _ . _ . . _ _ _ . . . s 73:01 al..;8.,~ 27.? h 31.0. :JWJ «g ad 7131582 30.05 1.33 (D {C 326 0 «UDLHV .« ..1QL7L...C«JI41.-~1......»...J8\1A.u.,»._3w31,_l.« HM 7n...1..r.1.... ...L a.) AJOCJAU . 5. 2 «AOL 1.0 1.1:. 010i... fl. 1.; 0 13C 00300013 0 .0 0 \U 003 3230233203?va — _ _ — _ _ . _ . _ . _ . . . _ _‘. _ 5 0?.12130R52Ruo2 SQu./C,023._10,r)10.5 9 0 l 31 C4315 1. 5.7, “.... DO Qv 1. 7:50 I“ (... :2. 7! t.) 7, ).. PH. .4 «U :10 1.310 a-.. «v swab 1... 0 d,» O .1 1 30¢. 311 .:..0 T coauomgmaummcudeonj . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . _ 1. _ Q 9?. r) 717347.490 37?. 0. £176 1 mm. «a .-v ..M 31 018 J 1. 73:161..» 3 .3. 0 3 7.; 9131....“ 73 {371.3 .. U L a a t .../_1:2mv.;3;./}uu ‘1 11 ...»,0 7w! Axr.-. Q 3 G . 13 01011 Us...3.1.1.0....»10.0010CV10”U«010.,~nu0.fl..7¢1.3..«33_ :0303-2mm208.i3 L . . _ _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . 1. _ 3 «(rm/.07,“1.4.17189VA3TL187“307,083)..8.,C§86 ...).nnhwmqu ..nuw~.HVL. T11JU1.1.(.;..LwJFVWLmuuoL 7:11.“ o.‘\../_.1~r) 1. .4 5.7811 COHUUmwwHumU uCOECLU>OO 7. 01.031.91.0A0101Ay Unzaqnynvn-»11fl~rnaulndlnu 00 P. 1.9.3 . 2 .21. ................................ . _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ . l . .1L 3 lRJf‘ l/bé3nu.coi3gvfi»7._ 9.,CQ.C#60137C/6.4u66.0\0 2 L 0 zh. :5 E L :7 2J1 a . .3... 3,. H. /C 11.... ..u 1 ”..., C x u «... v! :2 .1... ,0 l O Q. 0 . .1 J1;A)l..-». r11...u_.va«U\u1.,._IJ.V».U.I¢A.V7L‘.1W..lOxu_.v~.‘lbu 31 ‘c “v fl .K | . , y i r. .» CCHuUQQWHQGULODxdaJ ...................o........... . . . _ . . . _ _ . l _ 1. 3 CRUD/09w. R 8 «9.1 2/CB,C,O 1...?4.» 7... 2 9.1710 08 5.535 3 30 6.4.1711... 1:) .-r-.._...,.~.1-..hw,080212.,lzh.6~lt;.,b. 6%) 2 .0 COHuUwhnwan mmmCfimflm 0 0.00«3000033000 033.U"..:1u.l_UC»UO.11:v\U20 13 ........o..........u...-.....- . .. _ _ . . . . _ _ . . . . 1 . O o 3 «(Java/I930.6Qufiu7.g7430N¢3121.93L35h46wJ 5:)9. 0 «(..lQJQH 7,)ch 71‘18nfiad 31.713414 l...7le.rfi.aJH..fl..m_Qjaer\w \U Cofiuowhmauwm fiOOZUU n1 010101-4110113 .010 014100003 010 ..-. . «.C o c n o o n c o . o u n o u c u n . n a 1 c . o c u u o o . . . _ . . . . _1 . Q. ,),. 15.2.14 7).); 3‘ 3.4 118 PDQ/Id ha [039). 11:...“ flu ...N 031.0010 AU 3L .5 O .1 fl.» 1 .17- 7,. R) «1:: 1; g). 7: 7.1.5 1.5 .1 ..c ..M 11 ...: 7L A nu. Hm... CW 8 17.30Avo0....Jn90.Un...1,..r.._«..nU«H.1.141‘.‘ll1\‘.|4Hz AU m .... u o o o o o . o u o . n . a o o u n s n . n . o o u . . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . . 1. . 8 1L 1,0 I.” ...9 x; ‘1 9L 12c xv..#u 3.. L 3... .4, :2 v 5.. 7- TsLN :2 _U 3,?) «44..» fry.“ n, 1. w. A...\I.: ..1... L .‘4 .7! ”I u ‘43:... .1 2.w<4.4.__.4..-,.~|,.|... COHUEQSUE «.1 13.5.... .....lm_1.1.3-.l ..\d\.g.1w4.......,.);1l,._1....1.:.. «1‘. u u a I o o u o u n I o . o o u I o n o o u n n a o o _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . l . . 7. .C “d .1. .r, 1 7. 7- 16:75 A. «51.7- 7-1. 3 «I 11:21.0 316 7- i. 4 )1 .. . _ _ a; .:....1:, .~ 714...) .fQ..T7 in. a .1,. 7.17 3C...),._ 8 7.. \ .mCO.me Data MLUZGJL.137,< 6 11..n4.....7.1.1.41.41....xpu...,.11‘11.a.,..d0.23.7,«QC «1.11, wmbfi.hfim13£h3CCwuaer’wa1L .......................... . . . . . . . .1 _ d 3:. ._ .042 2:. .:.._ a}. 1 1-3, 7r 3: a} 3.. a.) 9. 7: l .1 ... 4}»... “4,212... -.. . . 2117.. ....C 7.1.44 ~50 3.1. .4 -....(T. ..t ...:7..~,7.4.. ...”, J I . . Aoma ..fw :3 ....CQfiUdHMLQ. .... ..u ...... 1.1. .11. .1¢.‘»,....A..(. 1A.... ... \ ..t1. .1. \V. 1.3.0.. .2 .1._..,. ~.:)¢ Ll rm. Llulw...“ . .1 A. . \ 1 1 4 1 1. _ . . . _ . _ .1 . l u L - .3... I 17:, r H .. W ~ .. J, . z. . n v 4 awFMHI ...: 1A,.4. A ‘. . . . _h I u u a A 4 t o n o 0 1 . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ . . > _ J. . .1. -4nw .. .J~. .1.~(.. ...... . ...._:.... ... 11...».H 4... ...... .w.1...v o . wl 1 L. . ....v.»..;...m...L1...,....;. ‘u.H.1.YI,.; ....... .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ .. . _ 14 229 Lw<.m mcomamm omgamofiv:n: w :pfix pomucoo go mozmzcapm l mconno; oouqmafivcsm zufifi powucoc HmcomumqunHmCOmnmmw. b Ampmafipmv pomu:oo ho mqfibfi madam huflwcmucu whammw I magma uzmucoo J AMH¢mV mhd m»flumLLUqu1. mamom mufimcwucH mbwczm~i 92Hm> puzucgmgmn2H,n bflmflu CQwauwnomm,5 .> mafia“ >u.Eancgo ..U n! ’\ .1 o v 33 C E: L.. O . 1L l 0 7h?:. .Hm. I ,‘\ . .. IIH «117th Q , , C C). fl\HTU . .. ‘r C . MN 5., ‘1. II ,I . .148 law 1 l . . 00 .0 _ _ _ --I —.154 ?-l_u;j 7! $10 ila1. ‘ 7&4 OA\ 75.2, 1 AK)"; 3‘... .: n.‘ \; l?-1.J .UUC fiUU ‘1. V.. "‘ ..<_~ . :_ m. . .1‘ . . . _ Lmé... 7 ~1.C....s l HJW. . o c «(U 61,. A.) ”J u . . ‘1‘ . .r\ l ,U «U CJWv 1U. . n l . E), l J—urdcr of *r‘ix r -_‘v‘ ..«4 ~41, “LE TML H E :3, 5 .. uJ : '—a :4 : *4 g E 9 - fl - ,g o S a o m ~—‘ «1H. .. u r u f A :i h ”A H 0 O '0 H O H r-< H 'V L "1 H 7‘ _ ‘ " ‘ u ~15 v4 _ H H H M L f: >3 LU ll L 0 u L) H 0 " G) a q} ' 4' ‘ n. ;: J-c a 0 u fl D r- . L1: vv .- 55 ’1’) O O m D A. d L‘ H 4‘ h H m a! m U .D H H ’J i ’ I“ I: u w L. a o 1: .-— .. a”. a, V < ‘ m p {H 2 O J: C H O .:.»: O L t" “I H d m v7 ‘ H u I '1 ’1‘) u U) --1 u H u; ’U M J 7‘ I C b N H C u H r4 . 5'3 ,‘v m .3 Q {1 .7: (U L (U ' m p m c >‘ L 'H L4 ;‘ + , _ .. A n O L. I) ,L? «as, r.) a] ..4. o p 3; O O a E .H' :11 3 v-' : v-1 d ‘ I3 VJ : (I) p :3 E Rio-J _ :5“ p r H Vi : I 3 GJ L L. ‘1: H 0‘ 2:: ”i *3 LI! ‘1 C :3 S s ‘u i: Q) a L: O E ‘3 w T- O m a. j w.) o p Q r _ > U U '0 a. o . , -\ 0 $4 J ’ -. . v“ U 3 g. 1’3.>< C E E L. —, .4 1:..4 L. 7-. S S t 3 a O ... a ‘1 U c U « j. . N" .4 ('fi . _ I 'J L o t Z i: :1 "3 L a ix: rt: Li): .3 ‘2 .J m a: m .1) .1 o 3.; C. m o O C?) -4 H 1'. .1 H . E 0 m 06 g)” _ , 1 ‘ r _. 1g ,1 1 an u3 3' “ 2o 27 :8 s9 30 51 3. 35 3h 3. 3 ' m n m m, m,» I: m .rn’) .._,i-::13 .030 .0130 00 .000 .000 .000 .OOLZ .990 .03; :t L; '71" ’ . ..‘u . V ""2 _ ‘1}? Dbl 0:5 215 .0140 011a .. 5") -.00. .102 .i‘: -v»J .1:« ..ol -.1. -. -u -... ‘ - . ... , . ‘a ou‘ 171 088 -.J.7 “\‘ " ” ”‘” “ - 1‘7 ”‘5 ”“7 -.112 .1su .no7 031 —.15« ..0s . o .. . 7 18. .J5‘ -.»5. -' 3” —' " ' ”t ' ‘1 ‘T‘ -.. .4“ ~. 0 ~ low »70 -.Lon -.o3. .. 4 11¢ ‘"4 -GH‘ .3 7 . 4. -.st -.039 —.~.b ... .137 115 . 31 . I .:, ‘ z 086 020 [‘1 ‘2' .;.J 1--~ a q 1-. _ 1.“. -_{).11 _103 .390 183 ...-g.) -.l,‘78 “Q1 ..l ' - . .7 .jliJ -.~r;.) -._,.U(, -. {H —.’,I 4 .1. KY; '15:: qw ...)! L\_-'8 U7” _ l") _ 1‘0 _ C014 -.U.‘8 .0“)? -.15‘ ""17”“ -.:’i —. H -..’ 1 .;'.H -.l V -..M -.....- .-.. .1. - «j - . nu ;» I. . '75 i’l 15‘? 13:1 ‘gl. W It} -.LT’ASIL~ 1‘)“ .0814 ALL) .L}u5 .JCU .lOB -.170 -.fil‘O .i37 .‘::9 -..;, . ‘1‘ "1': _E l ‘J y‘} 12.4 .;8(‘ ‘01? J”? .133 _ U71, -.ILjT .lk‘u _.b~‘3 -. N '1‘?” 1‘ "”2 "‘3‘ -..,.. --*- .1 . - 5 . .. \1" 198 - 171 —.;18a -.mu F". ‘L' V ' >"L 3“ 3;! {“‘w 17‘; .UH'. .128 1_ H .03 ‘ —.. :h "- J I I \ ”'5‘ ‘4") ”“3: -.,14 "- ‘4 ‘M. -. E.) . . - _1 . .w 1‘.) 0(1 0‘36 .1115 . U. . , w . u ~‘u 17,; - ..y: .137 _11? 3,07 U'N 05“ _d 4. _' ‘ . V .391 ‘J'S .114 mu . Hr:- . .1” -, - f . I ;', . ,. ,7” .y '1‘ - 110 ...?3 12". win 48 L "J L1H. . 71 if: Aliv -. a; “17.6 -a“‘"l, .144 1(«) 0:" ,l!,( .197 _.“:‘ I)?“ in) - : r _ ':«‘1 '. L '- v... ‘.‘ (7 - 1‘1“ _ .3 .1113 .103 {LN} {"35 'L]l)l .U‘:'\) _‘ 3; 'k- .‘-l .Ui“ I 5 "i) "J-) “ - L ' -i A . A ' ’ .| ~-\ ‘., :\;Q ~wa 09‘ “l“ .077 ..18 .1N . w 7‘. ' , ‘ v‘\, 7“ .. n ’1 _.‘ 4’1 .1‘H ~1L( [_(‘U -ov‘f'b .U; _. J- . L (' 0-A: l" 'A _o ‘4‘ -.l‘J‘ 7‘ . l '1, 017‘ ' ,. ‘1 .61 ‘36 '||.*} {)3} t)“ ‘ - (‘3’, .Uuo ..Ja‘] .OMq E”, {M ' ‘l T" - - t‘ . " olfw . .‘l - "‘57: -.( 4r: H.‘ . _',u L A: °-“_L~ ': i ‘ g , H—u) -. ‘34 L“ :1 7 '1‘. V, 4 ‘24 72 1. HQ; .25? 1%.; '-lj‘) —.L.‘0 _“14 .13” J9” "I‘D; "'I‘ ' “L --x3 - ' .1 c .14 . _ . 1 ,— - , . .. \) WCL‘ 01-4 . J ,1 f ; . v ‘1.» «'41 {Qt HH‘ a ’v L).AR -.O‘JU -.U.’D .Uv"; .( it .\ ‘ .}l~' :1“ "H‘ "C‘L U." 'L“ ‘ . H. -.L,‘;; -.t~.~ ., V « _7_ ‘ y r.) HID - 4%3 'oJC‘? ‘;; V'L " ””’ ‘ L “' --” ‘ -”7w ..5’ a:« .Crw .180 gnu -.195 -. .3 ..10 .g -\81 175 ‘1; 3;: ‘1 .‘ L ”7* 17 - ”'“ ‘FB ‘fid .:uo Hit .98? man .oua .mu? -.107 -..93 ‘-{u. 'w{o -.J r4 —. -. ‘w -.‘. . .‘., ., V ...- _ ‘ ‘ i c - A {)g ,‘ A; f ,- J' Ir.» .r‘ _ 112'", -.. 5) -,";‘7J .11.“ .1387 .130 '1‘4 .31.? .O‘ju3 .033 -..\Hj\) nxl: \lpg . :1» ‘1 H . ‘ . l _ 1. 1:1}. -. ll; 43:.) _r. .1") . 37ij H 53 .z-jfily . 3H3 -.’.).“b —.\}L"b _. 314 -.L) 3 - 08 . 3; n 1' .:v‘i 1.]. WI, .116» .EM —.115 ~.l.“j 07,) .091 1‘10 -.Ull _ang .160 -_\)11 -, ,1 041 . ... - k, { £4 1L3 .1‘11 -.l:’_it,~ -.J?_,1 .0‘k7 mic} in? ..,u17 “00.. .lrw -.U).O -.U)‘ ,Mfl . ~.. .- L . - .‘fi \ "‘L 111.. "1‘: 116‘ )U\ \\,u .831 _-0'y0 -.U3. IJ.‘~ %—*' i " 1‘ '1i‘ ~1J4 _N'C.’ -. f‘ ... - .K: 'I \ :3 L. -. ...L ‘ Wat) C173 14 l 31‘ 1 ‘ )3 1‘3 1 8 [WYQ (15,} ORE" —.Uij _-,\]37 ‘oL‘uu --l- 8 -.k, _. lg _ a \| . 'L 4“ . _. 9 A ...; o I,“ ‘ ‘ V I k - .V . ‘-l "M 1%. -.Gwn —.¥+n .175 .ucu ~18 .147 .015 .1u; .o;< .J?0 2* I . x" 1 "'1'” HS 1;“ 0‘0 066 16% .010 .05" -.U«’JH .057 .m8 ":32 .|_ . . , . ~» «r ' ‘ .' 7| ,7 .' \_ ‘5 - h -. ‘2‘ -7-1.a‘)-14 .hm .303 _mm ML. -.O.8 ~er --.‘).1 “‘37 .1 1 ‘33 ‘58-1 .‘)l‘.l(.1 ’\ 3 QQ'Z 17“ -.01(.) _.(\‘l)u _.1\27 “:0’43 _.18‘_ -olLL o 0‘. ,_ L . .M _ 7‘ ’7 ma- zjf’m 1)!) 14811 .2147 pm} . i7" _000 .1“. .317 A. .50 a. v _ ‘ V i - ‘ I .000 37w .189 .%HH ..31 -.LU7 .L73 .{73 - won ”a; .%U< .305 .n.3 .oou ..u ‘ ” "" , ' - w . \ao 139 32-1 000 -“HR .1us .Ll. .u. . _ 33-1.’NH7 “’68 .0140 .11”) .181 W—lu‘m! -.1L‘0 .U‘:8 . 359 3H-1.0d0 .157 .046 . .. . 30-1.{HJU -.\)a. ' 1.000 230 cw< mconnom uoaawoavcw: no": pomucoo go zocmzcopm n:0nhom ooaamoancax near vomucoo HMCOnLUQEHIHmCOmLom AALQEALmV uoaucoo go 0939 mHmUm huumcoch m9ummmLmopm ofimom audmcmucH me mouofio>mgom oaanb mo;ov:wawccm. mzan> :ofiuficwoomm e1Hm> mafi:L0u:oo m:-a> upoaafim v mLowmpao chofipaasooo Kmfiu fig 1.. 17 13 C) ..J Pu 7: » «c . . Q .72..7...f..(1...vvr: 3. nu ma ‘ . fi\...7ab ..L a». ......kw. ,b. 5; fly I»; S4,.4‘._C a!» «J.JO:F.1..CP...LCr...JCl..~.3 ................. . . . _ . _ . . . .1. _ 8 l O608~U§ 578223747aflquflv a». O 0 AL. 0 . .000 .000 .030 .000 ‘11-‘11 .UQU 3’1“.) ' .‘ W 0 ”JD :13 71.5.0622 ~17 77,7.710 32 C .J O l C O 0 O C .U 0 “1C au ................ ...... ..... . l _ 811866077758830N :.3.C7c;.9.~146,C/56.,070 ZOCOOOCOOCOUCOO o D O o O 0 I I b I o A I O a .. ......_ 1 . 6 1 :J29669,26122220 “0222/060555C150 11001110000000 .............. .... . ....._l . 5 l ludLQ/OOBCJOQ‘UDU JOOOIOAVUijUOO ............. _ . _. 11111 _ h“ 160.85r35.‘.00fivo lur)LmA~/_UOW.;\WUAHOO U.UOU.1..U~UOU_~UWVO ............ ._ _. 1111 _ 3 1 2Q289_U.5r)10flu\b lxngmdafiugrfiondo 30001000000 . _ __ 111 _ 9.. l 15.88:):J5‘JO Q 1.4.39.0..1- :firJO «HO rJ l,HuJ...V flu UV ._ . . ~$wi . 1 l 1588.55.310 1; a. wLH aU. 3‘ C), .U 0.1 .UJIUJTJQ _ . . . ‘l _ U l M6Ru§d£ TAU UH h 47., ..CCxL ,Jfi/Q .UJU JU . . _l c - P1 3 O. 7 O A u .w L) O. 1 VI 11. Illinv .0 dqunga, m n n u a n D n .3»; _ . ...... 4A & r .7 4717:. 311» ..I 315 fill .1 1..» 73% U. 3 . . . . . r1. _. . .l 3 — 4!. 7 C .1. 3 an» .4 O 1 «Lac 4 71,.U C A ..,._,..w‘.U HA . . . . . F _ _ . _L .J _ A. 6 P -LndeJ ..L J.VVI:4#JJ 1434 .1» m. 1. _ . . . Mu .LJ . I 1,50 0 a] ‘ 21M. X . O O I. _ .1 r _ t ’4 3 r33 ”,7” 1.,..J _ Uh“ . «I. A _ 3.; .4) A E A. T“ .. Eu .. .M .A m; . 1c E 3 Co: . C 01 V.‘ f c H 5‘ c: .2 a 3 ‘-' 0 ‘5 f": "’ o 8 r: a a H E ”1 5 57° 'TC" : -« 0 o c: . u a no _ k H O 3 L O U c m H o '4 Q H v-l ~11 ,3 .4 «2 «3'1 C O H u o h a v-« H -4 H E: i. .3 _3 3 a 5 31" p cu H m o 1.: .4 n a; H “~ 53 § 33"” 5 9 5.5.: o 1.. u 3 a: o .o o a: Z S I: c L . *8 I 53 33 S «s :3 53 g I: o ,7 c w :4 gm: w ’ :0 a p ‘4 :0 H m H u "" i. .4 O (.1...) O : ~ :9 -< :6 m +3 H H 05 H 13 £1 '3‘ _. n O O 3 a U) H 0 cc u m c: >> 7 2’ >: d- v " M ‘ 63 U C c? an H o u :7 'H I“ f") :3 U E- ?! M L“- : rxz u: «3 1) m u .4 H T} 3 3 C 5‘ f: .1 :3 :5 3 :1 :1 n :0 E -—< c a: £5 a: ’1 L L 6:1 E“ 71‘ k '71 L11 " :1) T: 3 2:) :4 L ‘3 g g Q C}. '3 f‘ L Q L , “ F 1.) '3 2 ‘ ‘5‘ 1: C, *4 O '1: a $4 H :3 a. ‘7‘ - 1: ‘3 f" 7 b “- H '1: 5‘3; 5 : r. 01 D > 'U :1 :1 o C 1. l: C? :1- 3 “f" LL. ’ fl ('1 _ 4 “U G.) V U :3 ("j 0 Q) I: 0 U C‘ .‘3 73 ;5 5 R L: 51 >2 :2 a: . 1 .u or. ~21 1: ..1 0 z: o a: o U 3; 71 » ~ 1 r r ‘7 :e 2‘ 3m 31 32 33 3a 35 36 37 t i: 1, 1‘1 1“? 1‘7) (1.] 1 ‘VI \OC GOO UGO .O"’O .000 000 000 000 .000 .030 g ‘ ” ‘ 1; 1‘“ ‘ j"7 1 ' 3' ‘ ‘38 ‘ 00“ 035 '23“ '133 2073 .036 .071 -.0u7 .028 4% - “a _ 1.13 .. ’10: - Jim W: 11* - (31 .088 000 -.u18 -.O12 __151 _ 075 “052 .066 .11“ ”i .42F - 1 1 ‘5 :02 33 - ‘37 - , 4 - U“? 1“3 ' 055 .137 .258 .080 .121 .002 —.066 .119 {3 g , - 7.3 3‘; 131 pa 1,, 2 008 350 .026 .00u 006 _ 039 .031 .006‘ .09“ -.076 7? 1 7 — .41 — gaé - 1?; _ 102 — 7a _ 0'; 036 - 003 .02 -.0L8 -.1ug .062 -.ouu _ 211 .071 -.008 -3 1-5 31; 01? 03v 13L — 07? ‘5' 039 - “00 .039 .101 .038 _055 _ 001 .036 -.1uo _133 ‘:‘ (“I‘ l '3" - {If v ‘ 3b.}. \' 7 - .“j - ‘11-'03 ‘ 180 -.990 - U83 ' 095 ”0103 _'102 .200 .062 -.OL); 5 5: - 1:5 3?’ ‘ * - "5 ' ‘“‘ "3 — 089 ' i5? "'15“ 038 “ 213 -.031 -.028 —.223 .089 .025 {“‘L "l I # _ «q _ [3‘11 1 1" r __ {furl .1: .0??? .Oufa - 09— '012 _.00u _'0u3 _.'027 _.Ol: ‘3 ‘” * 7’ ' ‘ ” “7 '“ ‘ ‘“ 113 '9”? .958 “ 992 .012 -.00u -.ouu -.027 -.0;; '2‘ " 1 7 ‘ r“ ' '“ *" ’“ ‘ ““ 113 '059 '938 ‘ “93 .012 '-.oou -.ouu -.027 -.010 :~’ '9 , *7 - ~7“ ’ ‘“ ~ 7 ’r“ ‘ JLC ‘ 3 -?5? ”’8 "092 .012 -.oou -.ouu -.027 -.010 ‘2; ‘“ 1 7 ‘ "“ ' '“' ‘“7 ~'“ ‘ ‘““ 11‘ '“59 '0*8 ' 092 .012 -.oou - ouu -.028 -.0;e :1;‘1 C') H N 1‘74 "‘ 1 - 7" ‘Il J - 13:.“ - 1L7 .111 .001 - (337 .005 -.015 .1148 .063 039 1:1 _ 4»: 4 ‘11:.1 1f - 1‘59 --l_:~'o - C318 0'19 -.082 .018 U2“ _ 152 -.088 .060 .022 9‘45- ” g3 : - ~~ ‘2» Lu - 158 —.ulé .050 038 156 —.010 020 .052 .001 _022 _ 001 _.107 ‘17 - .- -. a. 830 :9 08? 013 .013 179 302 -.ou6 010 027 _ 020 -.065 _ 072 656 “' - J ' 5“ ‘ '73 ' 5‘9 “18 ‘37? 353 063 ' 1““ “'19s 0‘ 200 —.001 .001 0&3 - 139 5 ' , ’43 - 13‘"; '- ‘V’y’v ’ ’!-‘ .1Q: ‘09:" - 0:45 ‘ 1‘99 -0076 ‘0089 .085 -.127 -.086 —.Ouu - 2:8 , A. 4 {.143 — 1.— . '3' - .I—‘IVJ ; .016 077 15“ -.321 129 .053 .072 .113 .150 “.023 '1‘? 1-1 '1 -.‘ , - 1:3 - I0: - ‘70 —.001 -.036 1u0 .ou6 100 081 .057 .063 020 .c~2 1'; I “8 ' 1:1 -3 .C‘ub 389 1,30 0114:] o (.3 129 .382 .009 _.O36 3:3: éh-l.“ A]? '71 ’1 .115. 305 1‘32 .180 - 029 005 .Ouu .014“ .002 .bL‘O 21-- J “~ - 35 -”9° O“3 ‘3? 118 166 — 022 .032 .003 - 1&5 173 2:—; 1 .‘:8 353 021 -.006 .101 - 081 037 _ 099 _ 030 _ 025 _.‘13 27—1. * 32; —.;18 -.225 -.179 —.205 -.165 “192 -.20h -.161 -.0i'3 38-1 1‘03 .071 .001 -.054 —.109 _“130 - 075 _.037 _.102 .071 39‘1'000- '2“3 '332 '287 .277 .329 .038 .021 -.0:8 50‘1'00031-1'308 .176 .172 .308 .078 -.083 .153 ‘ . ' 32-1I000 .210 .353 .055 .026 200 33-1.000 .362 .017 .087 -.O."8 35—l.000 .227 --.‘.;‘7 36-1.DOO -.l"5 231 acomaem amaaauavca: and: uuaucco ho muzmzrmum uchLom nwaanuflccm: Spar uuwucco HachLaaehuflmCOmuaa ,mnmeahmv pomu:oo go vuzb mfimuw apducmu:H muqu mamon puruuou fimewwmmpm;pm wagon mufincoacH mqu bmflu... acouCSU “maa%v ccflumn.7 Dumxob mmnzufiupq Hmcgwufivmgb ¢ _ J. wasp? huanz;ugm ,1.: 1 .LF: )0 )V. .‘ . gsvu;:u flgnb¢:mu ezfia> :o:uv;a4;w:w :JH.. r m1atb yufiiLn; m3.r5 r mhm;m4fln Hruowwsg1mnp $ o r upwmwdw n—L .- l 16 r“; 1‘ .1.‘:,...nC .fi. ~ 3.3.31an .3... \ .. 19:32.17;7;:Cw,7 a w ...‘.\..u U 3 O T. . .P. if. 5. .C 3 33C 31.1. n. a. .................. . . . . .. _ . . . . _l _ 9» w. 0.3:273,ln36U22223QVT‘D .50 3 .79. .c 32 ... ,C ff. .C F. 33:20 0010‘..4~c7.000.94ndxc31.U ................. . .... ..... _ l _ 7 c.1093“19,361.90,QLVQ.3Hl 7 CL C)? DAL c: gaeavfiye W. J 2CliJCUUlCOQJUQJ O I o l I l O 0 I t o n O C 0 0 . . .. ..... .L 7.33)..-.«5147r366666U 0:401 41:4;72,“ L hflh \., .1.leU0):l.$0~h.fl.AUfl.AUJ ............... . . . _ .... .3 . 1A n3flv67llh- invndfiuo‘ (30.1)). ulxh‘JH.‘(;U.MJWIH..,AJ\; Hp "kn. U11. .Ufmwfvfl../H¢IM.\UO .............. . _ . 1111.1 . .u l 0H..f.wl‘x.‘.rw 7,-w..l‘wrl.\.u.H.. In ,1). 3v..‘(;1(_ 3.. H.“ 3f»: I.” H: \J .Ib anu,U‘.n\llJ\\.l,~Hv\~”TU .. _ 111:. . «4.. 1 fl “Uta/1.12 73111.5 La n1” 3‘. 331‘ “A, I. «4.!3 )» fix .1. ...J wu n4 4 1‘ ‘ A...“ , ‘l,. n mix. «1.. _ . _ ll.. . \( .4 lb. 7,]. U 1 \(‘\...\\...'I. O ., g M, . . _ ll _ L . 1 I r.81‘.u r >. J ‘ 1~\ .1” 4 \ T w W U I»; ¢ 1 . _ _ y. . x; 144‘!01)4w«1;‘J \\ . ‘ Ln. 1,], j ,J 1. a 7. .Ay _ _ _ .1 _ a 1,75), a8, - 75:..21LJ sx 131...). I .,, . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _,. _ L: . 7Lw F4» 1.» J, ,a \A f.‘ “.4 L .I _ _ _L _ - , ,3; w.» .l A _ _ . "‘1 _ ll 1 ‘1 J .7 _ . Hz; J . .r .i. _ 4 , I .d 1- m 1 . .1. NJ .. . Q 7m: " (:‘JLEC'; 4 f: w-W"? n, : .Mkug. :!.'—1‘A_tf‘-x nEch Hacsn;;_ a nzcwmeLE Ca mamELCLZCQ hufififiooz ~m:owuwaaooo uwfifinoz Hmfiucovwmmm ceauumumaumm copzzo ceauomgmwpam Haofiumz ccfipomumaumm asbest>uo :ofiuomgnwgmu Loyd; cofiuunuufipmn anxsfinzm Sea Hum.“ .u a at u ~01;£ufl . was” a. :cuwr,3vm . u:u .uchsu J.w Jun a: .J\«.~4; 4,L‘nnn_.h; and {5 «4;. C}. a: 13 .g «d; 1 A au‘ .JJ (9.. ~a....Cflfiéax.W“...“‘T.w. F. I u.».::;.:‘w.x; \. ...|_ ‘, ~.. . u 1.....o.(_.¢ \ ~11‘ _‘, ‘ . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . 7. "J x. rt 7. Q. ‘ . .JJ 1, 5 3.. .H L 2:1 44:» nl f . 3; .Hr‘Lm «Us..A.A. NO]: . . . . . . . . . . . l . ..M FJ U U ..I .5, Q... q} 7. ... 31:4,: 9‘ k P1» 2., ,1} ,. «14 v“ :4 1; AU ,. U, M, n .An; U1; Uluhw. .‘3 MM Uwaq . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . :1. .H Mk Cu K, 7! Z) L w? W .1 w 3 3 ‘1 Eu w/ .4 ..C ‘ . U r 7; .4... J - I 1 HI .Jx J x .I. l‘ . fl. 1. J H J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . _ .1. \J .i C} n , l. ,f. H a _ L) ; $ mmu .mu 1 ‘1‘ . . ..‘u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P. :5. 750 L : LIN. u 7 7 7. 7 v! 1 ‘k z 1‘14} 1 LL, .L ., ,., lUt .l ‘ a... n:,. .1 .JJ .3‘ 1. v R 4 .:.u » . 1.\, »;,..‘h L .7 w‘ 7 .. 1A 00 I . fix 79 W. ., ‘L K m .. m y A] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 ,1 »- Eu 4 r 4 7t . , r L t ,. F) s. .w‘ VI. . A p. ‘ c ‘h a « Mk 3. \. 1, x. . 4 ‘ ‘ . 1‘ f w w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . ‘ y y L . ‘ , . . 1. . . ..f . 4 w. ‘ r I . . g F _ n L A _ . 1. w H, ._ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . _ 1,. H . Lg . ._ - . | A V H . w W J \ 1 . . i ‘ ‘ . . ‘A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. 4 . 1 .q .. d w n u L . ‘ . r.» a A . . . .. J , .. .\. .v. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x A 3,: .w ,2. I .I . .. v y < ~ .3 M . ; ‘ A .L . v y t . . .ll ‘ . ‘ w 1 A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p71,. . ‘ r w . A . v a. . u d ‘ r t » , . I. ..y. A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..7 .. .. . . x v‘. .‘ ‘. . ‘ .. . 4 u 4 ‘ . N V 7. y I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . #V V.“41 A r, L . . ..4. .14 .. ‘ . u w; ..v .1. . L ‘ i L . . ¢ A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . a‘ . . .. . .-. 7,7 I .. I Q\ ‘ o i n . . - ~ ‘ , A . A A ‘uA ‘ w 1 u . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . 1L , , .. N, . S . w _ . «y A u . I ‘A, .‘ . ‘A _ .IA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘CDU «.:.HL. gu ‘A .) . . .‘sl :Ik .11. r 1. < A ..4 . y n.... o . - Q l C i . f . . . . . .1...&,.. ,l .2. . A i, .h\ x 1‘. n . o Lwi 6i .<1 . UC-f v.3 I . 3i—Jl ...5 W.Wx. . . . .75 r; .1 .U . . . 3 z. .5 My. . . .wrc . 3 ,.. w} . . _ ,uUu p k . . . . ur, .q .11... . . . 54.... u . . Hp, ) .006 H.» a i ..,~. u 53‘ \. . x \ l..... . . . o . _ 2..\.lf l 9! .I\~ “(U/7.x. L), «Hhflulqlknlx. . a . c . . . .U «31'». 7. Id ‘. n (411 .W_w;.,.‘1. : o o . . . _ D,VH\. R‘. .U v! x .. :x W. \fi .1 \j ‘( ..t o . . u . l . [h z.“ a K .4, dw/AI‘ w«\i‘. .H . n . . 1.... . 3) I, 1.4.“ g .‘.,_~h F. “ . ...Jxl j . . u EL 232 n25: Lu 33;;scwvsnm cuax uvcw:co as nuczsrtau acomgmm nmnamofivzm: :ua: co Hm:0mpmaEHuHmceanm Ampmefigmv pomucco go game waned apfim:mpca mama r, . m4mun u:vu;oo «M@dav mP< mp“ avLMQLm wagon mpflnzmu:a mp¢e ucmusou huh Uhmxc& manspfiugm madmw ypfinczwgw Lava m. 4 d L ,::» agnhdy n:uaH;L arm“; vLm339 ensufipgc 3 J cnfiu> awcrguunug 2L:zmux\ Hagafipmaauew '\ \ E} ‘l. .l. j. _ . . A «91,... _h . ‘ . , .... “. A _ .. .,~. ....A.‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F: L .1; 4 u . 1f: 4 .1. 2.. :. . C 5 . r ., I (V ...] l/ a}... 0 ,3 «U Q,.,. {C Q; a...) no , a 3.9 .:x h: CUAUSFJ 71.?JNL our F1..uuv,r}. A1. ln~ux aU. UC«U.UJC.;T.RVIJ‘..‘...lH. ............... . _ _ .1 _ C: :1 n5 .ww 2135(014 L,,.r.:.5r_;i‘1_vU 1:1?be x,“ E ...1: Fl, Q 5 fl lnunl.‘l‘x0fi.«fi).,hylu 7|. xi” .............. . _ . . l . u .- CfU.l~..laC3}f/h I . <_\Ww .5 H.7L1L7J,JTC 7‘7, 1 5 S. U ..J Jar.” H. H, 1M \J__ -:. u ............. ‘1. 0r. ..o ...vxl‘o. 1 H .U. 7.;l‘wéflix , in .I C: x .. ‘ 3. .rJ .. . .. . .. . .. W. I. .1, F, .: V‘K, 3; .JR‘ 4) .1. .4‘ U, A ‘I. 71.. w; J 4. _I...%~I._lkx‘ . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . .w. _ .> 1. 3 717-77 u T . H«\ \ .4 » ...-7V V .W.¢, \ 11. I, . H l<.fl, . . . . . . . . . 2 7.1,! L J n11 q. r, 2.3, 4 .\H r |_ a H ... ,4. WV A: w u. l ; A 1 .... L L . l. ,, r .4. !H k x. . . . . . . . ‘ r_ C‘ 1. r‘ . l T. M k‘va ‘ x o 0 I O O C ..Vu \7-«. 3\.7... y 1.9 L . _. L‘.L...C,C~;.4v.,._.. 4» t\ U: C. - «...»... _ C u . ,. CU , _ u L .. . . 7.. ~‘...4,.d..L .....w .. ‘..x............ x .. _. ..lw. L a h 1 .. __ nELoz mnoaxgmm o» .SHELCECQQ 3 32.58 03.. .. .. 17.1 v a L . . ..1 .77.. . . ; ._ v o I O I I O O O a O o I I c 0 I 0 o a I I 0 O l I I 0 o I I I c . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . . rfi.\...7.{u13:..7. 3._3,C1C.3vra_dég ).~ Q. #1..“ ..C 399.41.: w.;. -9 7.13..“ . U flu 33,1¢.C AIL: :115, ....L..L ......A I. :39). .C 7-_:\..;_5‘. «v1... 1 . 2.5.... . huaaunoaz HMCOHquDUUO 3 .00.. U3. Ul U L ..Lfl. .... ... .... ....0 0....1180.7L01lu 11.. -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . . h wfnUAORC/D.U- gnu .11.. 7| 2’3. Fir 71q3,v.q:..w‘fh. 3L5.“ 4 ..~nJ .).».V I... mx 0 m :0 no :, 9.3 C). c.3415 1 £«I;»;; . a 7L... 1 ......‘<,........,.. ... ...; C .. pHHHD E H «u Cu K 34 U000 .J 01.3.1031 .... .tu J; (1.... 11k} ... 0.11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . _ _ _ Qu flulw‘ ... .325 ....dno HP} 1.5 H 1....3.\w,\......... ...... \1. 747. . :4 .4Jn.w,rJ n1 n: u. ...0; u .. a...~ 3J.... .. Cs .. .:.. .u If ... .H a. :OHHOGQPHUQW CUKSCU «(a 7......vfi. 231.3. .:. - lAUl .l:..1...1‘.L.U7A C.‘ ..q .... nu ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ 008J...JJ,7(..CR\.-...1u..-«.4 \¢.J._.Jw.......u7l2. u . ..«J .4 \u/ .1 .4 a4... .V 12. ... “an. .4 ..J A... a .u./ \J . I . :4 6.! u. . a: \J . . ~ 1 z . _ P . COHQOQQOwHflE HMLHUQF .44 IN. .u.(..u.i flux... .. ......1...\ ‘ .L...u.- . _W. A}; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . _ . . . _ ca.” ~_._71.4).....uv . 4C .a 2.: . u «.4 ..u...‘ .21 x. . .. .. ....VK. ... .. 1 .1 ...fl .. )7 2 a I. ‘t. .t 47 . . . l. .r. ... Thu... .11. . ., . a CDfiptfiiwkufiE HAQCLL .>.t. 3} .4519 . ..w. .A... ......J .. 1... .1;..l ....fu ., .144... _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . ¢ _ _ at) ..C .... ...)...n/ - .4. a . l l . r - . I. n . 4 . . ... ~ . .... .. . J .. x». 1 7C , .. .:.-.. . .. u. ..1 f1 .v.. .. . .7.“ .. .. ... CDHQUSL‘ fiwuflwfl. "I... ....< \J .. ...... ‘ ..L . . .4 .L .\ ... , < . 4.. . q n. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ .A _ l «‘u a.....v wf.....~..- 1.1.44 y x 1 w VA 1.7.... r r. U4 u C .. - fl” .. . .. 1w. 4 7. .. Q. a ... a. . _ . - l . ... . . w .. . A...” w - ..w .. ... . 9 03¢; n3...“ :3 Cw.“ .41 _l , ..... - ¢ . .-. ‘ .41 . ..A ... . l f. ..., . 7.703;}... H; _ . . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ n. L/ 4. I: Ifi .44.. .. A V . u: . I u \L . 1. . . . 1 .. I . 4 - . . x . . . .. . CUMuCTLUHux.» a).......u.., .. . L . _ . . . H.. . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ ‘ . ... . ..r J... 1. C. . . . .A .. . , o . u 1.- 4 r5 7 C... a . .:- ... a . .. .... ... . i . .. . o , . ... ¢ ...fifiyr. 2 1).. .:. .. .. .. - - .... .. .. ... .1 A. _ L o I D n o I I I a n I U I u I v n - n o q 0 u n u I n v _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . - . . r H J .. A . , v . . ‘ A . .. . . V . C . \ § . A. . 4... #0. n: A. i: . H . . .‘ \ .. . . T.fi..«~,u . _ . . . _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . . . . . ... .. _ . . . - . . - .. . . . . fl . r - . - .. HGCOWLLN 1.5.1. 4......)..% . .. . .. 4 ... . ... - a A n .. . - . 1 . . . . . ... winemjr. ..rq....~wflfl.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ ... . -:-..-L. . .3. - .... _u. «... .. “Cb. 1.1. ... . .97 IL. . . . . .1 . .r v A .v ,n a...» Li.“ .3. 1.....2..L “L“ . L . . ., ‘ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ - . 4 ‘ .1 . ‘< n . y u .. v .. . l .o u . . -... .. . 1 . . . . . - . .. ... ...k .. «3......u h a . u , . . ..- 4 _ .. ...o. . , . . i . . . 12.2... .-...- .. . . ......... . . . . . .. ..... _ . . . _ . . . . . . _ _ M . w 4 . ..m u q . . .9 a 1 ~ N L I my v ¢ 4 1 4 .n 21...“... ..N .... L. ... _ . . . _ 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . . _ fl _ a _ A _ 4.. 1 1. .. , m .. . .. . . . . 4 C .,r~...o .. r‘ I. .H .A , . . A . A . . _ _ . . _ . . _ . . u .r u. u ... . . . . _ _ r ,L.....)......L cw... L-.“.:...... ... . . . j u ~ .o . .1. ‘ .4‘. I. C . . A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ — . . _ . _ l . J . Jx N ... 1,0... . u I c,» . 1. 2:1 _v. . . .. u . . . .. a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ ..A . .... .. 1 4 .. .3. . .. 4 a . o . .7 . .; . . . . . 1. .. . . . C < . u..:...;. L“... z” :..~1..,.I; ”.... 1 .. . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . . . . . 233 ....k < r...“ ncounom c;;;:o_ocm: 7 new: nomucoo he aucezcsnm L mcompo; uvqamodcca: cu“) nowuccu “QCOanaEHnfimcochmmw Azpmsunmv nowacoo go oaaawu mason haumzzucm mbdumapmoLm.. 3 saxom zuam:ou:~ MH afianzcqu,: .u:~.«> ..u__;_.;>.:~amfls- .&:-w> .a;~.;«:k;‘_;w:- P. madd> :swudzzzomm ? mzar> mauEL3;::U-~ 4 ,5 « n> 979.33..“ .1 mLomiuxu anzofiwdgzuooné me l «.4 w, .... ..4J .44 _.:. «.:.. . . . . «L 4 3. 13.3»... 7, 7 ....)L_C./__.v1C/ .«U . . ... iv a: NU (r. a ,0 14:42.4..0 «C Q, «J 2., ....Un " 14 AJ :y L 4:331: 1.,:3‘:/. a o . (1» ~ 1,. «tit .33; .2484 ...v ...v év AI». . . _ ; P. 7; l «L F9 A... ,1. «a ,U C ~ ...~ ~.. 2.. .“ .. ..H. 1:. 4» _. .; . _C ‘1. A.-(Jp\.w~ a W, 4 n1» n._.,~fi...l\ . u o . l . w... 0.6 9 .32 9371/0 2} 5129 t). O 0 A. :10 A O .415 ...?fc . . 2 «J ... D. 2 «U fig ..J ... .... . ; .9. 7. ad .0 o 0,054._vl~.~.3:~rdhkfoz° ..v a.“ .... J. I J C, ..4 .5.» :,. if: ... fi.«»~£.ifiéfid..murhv.44w. u ............ _ . - . an r). ‘ A 31 J, CJAC A. ...v Cu .10 h: . “1.1!..r...1~ ,,C~.C 1. .C . .n. .I...‘A“\C\:_«W»..U1¢.H:J.eru ............ _ _ . _ _ 7. _ «J?— .. «n.1,. ‘; ..L C). 37.3. ‘H ,4 ..C «J ..LF...¢.7.5Q. 1. L... "ers ‘L 1. «I» a.) ..y... { b. . . . o . . . . . . . . _ . _ . 1 Ac 0 . “dix; T ‘L J 4. . , ..L .1. 1,. b. J a u _‘_.‘)_‘ ...,u_<_J . . . . o . . . . . _ . _ .1. _ .1. I. 4 L4 .2. .J. ..H ...L .\ .... 2 I \...q 37...; P..7. ‘5..\4~.I.../7‘. . . . . . . . . . _ . _ ... _ ”my ‘. .35... ~ chfiIHCqJ ..." _y..}..,..._»~ C.) ., ..«.\. .1_.,,_ H . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . A _ r4, .. ..r.._;.~...-~ I. u _ ......uq. \ ......u & 3....7b _ . ..‘ _ fa... ...h..¢..‘4. H A) ..h.~..1._mJ .. “.4..~:.\, . . . . . . _ .1 _ 71 ”J 2.4:“ 2.. ,V .:.,C a 4:... LL.~ « .:.; . . . . . . _ _.. _ {C .....h..;.1y » 4 :..« .:.. ..u ;..I_ . . . . . .1. _ V... ...47. Q a. . . . ... _ an v.1 ‘,.r; J ‘ . . .¢ _ :3 \, fl _ .:.. LAU .. l _ 8 a .. 3 Nu L _ ~ Q i l ~l‘ 'fi . '.Z’- X :1 ‘J- . Y‘J'.‘I‘ Uri. ”HELD z naawxaflzx Lg Aguchuzcu muwflapoz szoaunazouo «n02 ”aducznflmmm :gfiuoahmaumm Conscu cofiuuaumfiumn Hagan»: cuuuunamflumw u:.Ec wst m; 5) :ufiummu, 4A ~fl Lopwq Hau;wm :ofiwnzufin 0.1L ...w v.7. 09.... Muf.4.~.u,.. 3......1‘. 4. .‘.Q. .4 ;;.. g; g c... .1 q... 1:). ...n .1...,MHS« ..r. ”.:JgL1L no :H::QL.;:H 41w zgu 4d nvxnflnm 9;;u1 mcfib h; v mpxzudpg as @2453? Lagqu H33: .._. :fi u:vEgQL«>;z anano:ng: .44 I}; .44 .4. .41 a. .uq 441.’4 . .. .44.. . . 31,: ...;4/ .u . . . . . ...»u. .3... .A., . . .... 4 a: I}. H qr. ‘ Q . 4 . g . o . 1;..w .‘.,, . . . . .rfla #1 (; ....» ..l ..c , J . o . 1th? )1 ..r4.. . .. _. ...C u ,5... 2.. . .. .5 . .1 I , . (4 In .6- . o . _ g 7 7. (... . ~71 .... a . . LJ ..Iu H}. 2 , _ . . . ' o _ V A w. [u , ) ‘4 . .L . u . _ m—J VI. ”A. . 4 . . . . .4 .‘I. .V/ . . . .y. xr) . ~. . . o . . . . .u/ a o w . ., . . . . K1 L.) I. . o . . . .. 4 ... 4. . J z . . . . {db/L ..7‘L \w..L . _ 2,154 .. L / _ u . 7....4. ..4 ‘ »A .L O O ...J .v ... . . L. ., r .. . . .K a . . ... .. . .k . . . A . . ,w. . . .. . . . . . a (J; L .w!, . . . . . . P, , . .4. 1‘ 14 . . -. '4 4 ~ ~ ., ...«L , . ¢ . [H .. .C .. F4 . ..t ..I. . . u . n 1 .../.1. ,6 Z ..x . . a . 7‘ (r. 1 ‘7. .‘ ‘ . 3a.} , ‘o . . _ w.. w w .‘.o.¢ o . . _v/ . . . .. A n . . l ~—4’.4 7‘ ‘ . V‘ o . . I. ... . ... . 2: , . . . 4 . .7. J A . . . . ..J a; . . . . . . Q 4. . . . 444 a 1‘ .r. .1‘ wl. . u ‘ .4} . . . :10. c5 ...¢.. ..A. z A . . . H .. .5. l 4 f _ . n . . . . . . ..d hf. (. .r4Q4 4.. . 4.. . . o o . . - . 7 1.;4 (2.... . ‘ .. I . v . ..fi.../_.f4404r4.2 .... I , a .... , ..._‘....3f,.__: . u . . o o . . . u v... .4 4 1 u ‘ . 1 . u .4 u o . u . . . . .F.. . . l 7: ‘. . o 2.7, . A. ...L . , o u . . . . . .. ... ... 4 7 .4 .. . M r .44 J I/ ...: . . o . . . . H A 0. 4 .54 "I v r. . 4 . A .1 . «A . . . u . _ v. u 41 v .. .19., v 1 .A _ . ... . . o . . .. . . n . r. . u . .¢ .. , ... . . . . . M .. I < , . . g,. . . . . , 4. u H. . ... ..A ‘ . . o . "I. A. (J ( . .4 . c _ .4. .— M .1 1.( n . . . a ,. 477,. . , c . . . .#a 7 -. . a , . . . :1 a ‘ . A o . _ _ 4,... J . . . 4r; .: ‘ A a . . . y . . _ . w; I. I ‘ 4,. u . _ .d . a o . » I . . . ‘ _ . . . . I y . . ~ a ... l . . . . a . ~.L nipap. 2.4.4,}. f.. .. ....... . o o . n . .b‘ 4.{._44... .7 ..r ‘1 .‘owA : . . u . n . 4 ...... .. I. q .A. w 24.... ... . . . . . «a .czr. ..r w .4. 4,.‘4.4. , u o a . . .. _ .14 :4 r. 1.. . .c 1 .. o . - . - _V. . .4 u w L, . t . . . . . ‘g . o .o. . . 4 _ .4. . A . 4 o 63 LL < ‘1 (J '6 . > C. (_ ‘ r—« finansfigmd , w:»ung wiggnu 4:2: «v; 4.3) ‘3 . ax.< 4‘ (1) A ..‘ v :r. t . I: ,o . ‘10 . .,.¢du ) ,A I ‘ ‘.ur., A.A.. .. .‘.L.. . .‘ . 6 . ' Afr..ix J u 1‘;I. sf. ‘4: ‘ 1 I n 6.5.. ‘ p a... .> . IF I .1..J¢,... . ”m.‘ .. |11 . ...11 y a. W 11.2.:514 .. . ‘ {~1. ..V.£).‘..< :1r‘r . ~.T: )Jiuu. Kn, ¢7.<4 ., _k. . orL; :Jnnh “L ..c \‘ ., . ..x .\1L .{ yow.r ,3. ‘. o.‘ . 3;,mpvafiuummux . -“ 4: ..I. 114. Viv-.7) I .-«f 1 ‘Ll: \A .,H. J ¢ .2 , .. .. .n. ,h l \ v J21”. . . . I, . f 1.. 1 1 . . _ 17.. . . _ ‘H “V.“ U’I‘, ‘ o 13 L. \ .‘ .‘J .« ‘v «I. flux; APPENDIX B Personal Questionnaire 235 No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part has to do with your contacts with physically handicapped persons, and what you know about them. You may have had much contact with physically handicapped persons, or you may know a great deal 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. If you know very little or nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers are impor- tant. If you know a great deal about them your answers are important. The second part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to every question. PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please read each question carefully and do not omit apy qpestions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill in the answer as requested. SECTION 1: Experiences with Handicapped Persons 1. Some handicapping conditions are listed below. Condi- tions 1 through 7 refer to kinds of physical handicaps. Condition 8 is the handicap of obviously low intelligence. Condition 9 is that of obvious and persistent mental illness. In respect to these various handicaps, which handicapped people have you had the most experience with, or do you have the most knowledge about. Please place the number of the group you know best in Box A, the number of the group you know next best in Box B, and third best in Box C. l. blind 6. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) 2. partially blind 7. spastic (or cerebral A. 3. deaf palsy) (best) A. partially deaf 8. mentally retarded B. (next best) 5, crippled or emotionally sick amputated limbs 10, none C. (third best) 2. The following questions have to do with the kinds of contacts you have had with physically handicapped persons. Please circle the number of each experience that applies to ypu. Please reply only in terms of physically handicapped persons as listed in answers 1 — 7 in item 1 above. My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband) or child is physically handicapped ..................... l Some other relative is physically handicapped ........ 2 I have personally worked with physically handicapped persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. .......................................... 3 A friend is physically handicapped .................. A A neighbor is physically handicapped ....e ........... 5 A friend or relative works with physically handicapped persons ................................. 6 I have studied about physically handicapped persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations... 7 I have read or heard a little about physically handicapped persons ................................. 8 I know little or nothing about physically handicapped persons ................................. 9 Other (please specify) 10 No. 2 P.Q. 3. On about how many occasions have you talked or worked with physically handicapped persons? Please circle the number of the single best answer. Never Less than about 5 occasions Between 5 and 20 occasions. Between 20 and 50 occasions Between 50 and 100 occasions. More than about 100 occasions A. If you have ever talked or worked with physically handicapped people, how eagy 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. - I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience I have had no personal experience with physically handicapped persons . . . . . 5. If you have ever talked or worked 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? Yes, I was paid Yes, I received academic credit or other material gain. No, I did not receive money, credit, or any other material gain . . . . . I have had no personal experience with physically handicapped persons . . . . . . No. 3 P.Q. 6. If you answered yes, I was paid to question 5, about what per cent of your income has been 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 I did not answer "yes, I was paid” to question 5. . . 6 7. If you have ever talked or worked with physically handicapped persons, how have you generally felt about it? I definitely have disliked it . . . . . . . . . . . . l I have not liked it very much . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I have liked it somewhat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I have definitely enjoyed it. . . . . . . . . . . . . A I never have had such an experience . . . . . . . . . 5 8. If you have ever worked with physically handicapped persons 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 was, or is, acceptable to you as a job? No other jobs were available. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me 2 Other jobs available were not quite as acceptable to me . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me. . . A I don't know what other jobs were available or acceptable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 I have had no work experience with physically handicapped persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 No. 10. your 11. SECTION 2: Personal Information How old are you? (Write age in box) Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in youth (that is up to age of 15 or 16)? City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City suburb. Country town Country. Other (please specify) Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family) been mainly employed during the past 3 years? 12. City City suburb. Country town Country. Other (please specity) Where have you mainly lived during the past 3 years? City City suburb. Country town Country. Other (please specify) No. 13. 14. 15. 16. does your What is your marital status? Married Single. Divorced. Widowed Separated How many children do you have? (Please write number in box) . . . Please answer either A or B; whichever applies best to your present situation. a. If you are self-supporting, about what is your total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married, the total yearly income in the family). Include extra income from any regular sources such as dividends, insurance, etc. Please write the total in the box If you are no; self—supporting (or, if you are married, if your family is not self-supporting) what is the approximate total yearly income before taxes of the persons who mainly provide your support (that is, parents, relatives, or others). Make the best estimate you can. According to your answer to question 15, about how your income compare with that of most people in community? Much lower. Lower About the same. Higher. . . . . . . .“T Much higher No opinion. rm .1: No. 6 P.Q. 17. How many brothers have you? (Please write number in box) . . . . . . . . . . . . 18. How many sisters have you? (Please write number in box) . . 19. About how does (or did) your father's income compare with that of most people? Much lower. Lower About the same. Higher. Much higher No opinion. 20. What is your religion? Catholic Protestant Jewish None Other. 21. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? Not very important Fairly important Very important No. 7 P.Q. 22. During an "average” work day, you probably have occas— sion to talk and make contact with other adult persons where you are employed. Estimate about what per cent of these contacts and conversations are with people you feel person- ally close to, whom you consider to be close friends, or that are relatives of yours. None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Less than 10%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 10 and 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 30 and 50% A Between 50 and 70% 5 Between 70 and 90% 6 More than 90%. . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . 7 I do not usually talk or make contact with other adult persons where I am employed. . . . . . . . . . 8 23. How important is it to you to work with people you fee personally close to? Not at all important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fairly important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 2A. Now please consider all of the personal contacts you have with peOple when you are not at work. Would you esti- mate about what per cent of your contacts apart from working hours are spent with people whom you know because of yourgjob; that is who work at the same Job, trade or profession, or in the same place that you do, or that you otherwise contact in the pursuit of your Job. None Less than 10%. Between 10 and 30% Between 30 and 50% Between 50 and 70% Between 70 and 90% More than 90%. Nmmtme No. 8 P.Q. 25. People have different ideas about "social class." Which of the following possibilities best agrees with your thinking about how many social classes there probably are? None or one Two classes; lower and upper. Three classes; lower, middle, and upper More than three classes ‘No opinion. 26. Which social class do you believe you are in? Lower Middle. Upper Other (please specify) No opinion. 27. Which social class do you believe your father is (or was) in? Lower Middle. Upper Other (please specify) No opinion. No. 28. 29. most 30. 9 About how much education do you have? 3 years of school or less 6 years of school or less 9 years of school or less 12 years of school or less. Some college or university. A college or university degree. Some graduate work beyond the first degree. One or more advanced degrees. Other (please note no. of years of study or diploma obtained) . About how does your education compare with that of peOple? Much less than most Less than most. About average More than most. Much more than most No opinion. About how does (or did) your father's education compare with that of most people? Much less than most Less than most. About average More than most. Much more than most No opinion. No. 10 P.Q. 31. What type of living arrangement do you have? Rent a house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rent an apartment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rent a room (meals in a resturant, etc.) Purchase room and board (rooming house, etc.). A Own an apartment 5 Own a house 6 Other (please specify) 7 32. Please answer either A or B. A. If you are renting the place where you live, about how much money per month do you pay for rent? (Please write amount in box) B. If you own the place where you live (house, apartment, or other), about how much money per month do you believe you could rent it for? (Please write amount in box) 33. In every community each group (for example, schools, business— men, 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 government? the doctors and hospitals? the church? (Please place an E in the appropriate column to indicate how you feel that each is doing its Job.) Please answer for each group. Local government Excel- Don't Group lent Good Fair Poor Know 1. Elementary schools 2. Secondary schools 3. Universities A. Businessmen 5. Labor 6. 7. Health services (doctors & hospitals) 8. Churches No. ll P.Q. 3A. How long have you lived in your present community? Less than 1 year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 From 1 to 2 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 From 3 to 6 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 From 7 to 10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Over 10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 35. Have you changed your residency during the past 2 years? (Please circle the correct number.) Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . 2 36. Have you changed your employment during the past 2 years? (Please circle the correct number.) Yes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 37. About how many times have you changed residency during the past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number.) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 1 time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 3 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A - 6 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 7 - 10 times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Over 10 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 No. 12 P.Q. 38. About how many times have you changed jobs during the past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number.) None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 1 time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 3 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A - 6 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 7 - 10 times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Over 10 times. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 39. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title or name of your job and the nature of your work. A0. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? (Please circle the correct number.) Seldom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Sometimes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Usually. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Almost always. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A APPENDIX C Attitude Scales for Physical Disability and Education with Accompanying Definitions of Physical Disability 2A9 DEFINITIONS What is meant by "physical handicap." The words "physically handicapped" will be used often in the questions and statements that follow. Where these words are used, they will include persons with any of the following handicaps: l. blind persons--those who have no useful sight at all. 2. partly blind persons--those who have some sight but have trouble reading and getting about even with glasses. 3. deaf persons--those who have no useful hearing at all. A. partly deaf persons-—those who have some hearing but have trouble understanding other persons even with a hearing aid. 5. cripples or amputees--those 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)-—those who have poor control and coordination of their leg, arm, and head movements. Movements are often jerky and speech hard to under- stand. 7. disfigured--those who have been obviously damaged about the face, such as with burns or scars, so that the face has been changed. No. Location Male Group Female Date HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about physically handicapped persons. We all think dif- ferently about persons with physical handicaps. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the state- ment. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 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 2. Physically handicapped persons are Just as intelligent 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 No. 2 ATDP 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 No. 3 ATDP There shouldn't be special schools for physically handicapped children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About hos 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 handibapped 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 No. 10. 11. A ATDP 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 handicapped people 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 No. l2. 13. 1A. 5 ATDP Severely physically handicapped peOple are no harder to get along with than those with minor handicapps. 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 It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to lead a normal 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 You should not expect too much from physically handi— capped peOple. 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 No. 15. l6. l7. 6 ATDP Physically handicapped people tend to keep to them— selves much of the time. I. 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 No. l8. 19. 20. 7 ATDP 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 3. 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 NO. Location Male Group Female Date EDUCATION SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about education. We all think differently about schools and education. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer ypu select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 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 About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 2. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils. 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 No. A. Schools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and arithmetic; the three R's. 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 The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship be- tween 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 No. 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 disagree 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 No. 10. 11. 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. 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 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 No. l2. 13. 1A. 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. 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 Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well-established standards. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About hos strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 15. l6. l7. 6 E.D. Education and educational institutions must be sources of social ideas; education must be a social program undergoing continual reconstruction. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 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 now 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 No. l8. 19. 20. 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. 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 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 D Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values 89 b\° 89 89 Be 59 S :2 O 0‘30‘ 3%0 352% $332 2 5 CD To 8’5 ms! OS I \l II II II II Ii II C .9 ‘5 Es 8.: oh. LI— CC 0):: 1=5 ‘E-s Ur}: 266 "la SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES By LEONARD v. GORDON DIRECTIONS In this booklet are statements representing things that people consider to be important to their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do: Examine each set. Within each set, find the one statement of the three which represents what you consider to be most important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed M (for most). Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which one of these statements represents what you consider to be least important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed L (for least). For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is most important to you, one statement as representing what is least important to you, and you will leave one state- ment unmarked. Example M I. To have a hot meal at noon .................. :::::: — To get a good night’s sleep ....................... :::::: :::::: To get plenty of fresh air ............................... _ :::::: Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that “To get plenty of fresh air” is the most important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed M (for most) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents something that is least important to you. Suppose that “To have a hot meal at noon” is the least important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed L (for least) next to this statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would leave the remaining statement unmarked. In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statement to mark. Make the best decision that you can. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark only one M (most) choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set. Turn this booklet over and begin. SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. n 259 EAST ERIE STREET, CHICAGO ll, ILLINOIS Copyright I960 © Science Research Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. Reorder No. 7—2760 ' A—“——.—‘—-—4 I ' i A A —— 4--— 4 —-o-.—- _m.‘ ..fi‘ h Mark your answers in column A 9 A To be free to do as I choose ........................................................ M ..... l. .. To have others agree with me ........ ......................................... 3:: :::-.1 To make friends with the unfortunate .................... .-. ....... :::: :::: To be in a position of not having to follow orders .......... . .......... M ..... l. .. To follow rules and regulations closely ...................................... :::.- :::: To have people notice what I do ......................... . .......... :::: To hold an important job or office..... .......... .M” ..L.. To treat everyone with extreme kindness .............................. .:.-...... :::; To do what is accepted and proper “...: To have people think of me as being important ..... . ................. ”M“ 3:3 To have complete personal freedom .......................................... .:g; 13.3 To know that people are on my side... . . ., :23. .23.: To follow social standards of conduct... .......... , ...... . .................. M3 3:1, To have people interested in my well being ;::::: 33:: To take the lead in making group decisions 3:3: To be able to do pretty muchas I please... :::. 3:1: To be in charge of some important project”--. . _' 33:: To work for the good of other people ............... . .................. .33 33.. M L To associate with people who are well known .......... 3:3: To attend strictly to the business at hand ............ ,. ;;;;;; To have a great deal of influence ............ . ................................ 5;"; ;;;;;; M L To be known by name to a great many people ......................... ;;;; ;;;;;; To do things for other people ...................................... . ................ ;;;- ;;;;;; To work on my own without direction. ................................... ;;;; ;;;;;; ;M L To follow a strict code of conduct .......... _ ................................. ;;;; ;;;;;; To be in a position of authority ...... ........................................ ;;;;; ;;;;;; To have people around who will encourage me _;;;; ;;;;;; .M L To be friends with the friendless...--.....-.. ;;;; ;;;;;; To have people do good turns for me ..................................... ; 33;; To be known by people who are important .............................. ;; ;;;;:_. L To be the one who is in charge .......... . ....................................... ;_ 3:3: To conform strictly to the rules .................................................. ;- ;;;;;; To have others show me that they like me -- :::::: L To be able to live my life exactly as I wish ............................. .=::: 3...: To do my duty--- . .................................................... . ................... ;; ;;;;;; To have others treat me with understanding____-_.- , _. ;; :::.z: 1 L To be the leader of the group I’m In ::: ;;;;;; To have people admire what I do ............................................... :::: ;;;;;; To be independent in my work ................ . .................................. .33 :::::: L To have people act considerately toward me.--.-...-... ::: :::;;: To have other people work under my direction........---.-.-.---.- ::: ::::z: To spend my time doing things for others ................................. :: :::::: ; L To be able to lead my own life ........... . .................................. " :::::: To contribute a great deal to charity. . ................................... :::::: To have people make favorable remarks about me .............. ': ::::z: Turn the page and go on. B l l' 45/987 APPENDIX E Basic Variables The Code Book Transcription Sheets 267 ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICAL DISABILITY IN COSTA RICA AND THEIR DETERMINANTS: A PILOT STUDY BASIC VARIABLES East Lansing, Michigan June 1, 196A J.Felty and J.E. Jordan Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons (1) Handicapped Persons Scale, Items l—20; Card 1, (2) (3) Column 2l—A0 (content) total of raw scores, column Al, A2, Card 2 Personal Questionnaire, Item 7; Card 3, Column 32 (enjoyment Of contact) Handicapped Persons Scale, Items l-20; Card 1, Column Al-60 (intensity) raw score total, Card 2, Column A3-AA Experiences with Handicapped Persons (1) (2) (3) (A) (5) Kinds of handicapped persons experienced P.Q., Item 1; Card 3, Columns ll thru 16; best, next best, third best. Type of relationship with handicapped P.Q., Item 2; Card 3, Columns 17 thru 25 Frequency of contact with handicapped P.Q., Item 3; Card 3, Column 26 Personal gain thru working with handicapped persons P.Q., Item 5; Card 3, Columns 28, 29, 30 (experienced gain) P.Q., Item 6; Card 3, Column 31 (% Of income) Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicapped P.Q., Item A; Card 3, Column 27, English version only (This item omitted from Spanish version of the scale) 268 269 BASIC VARIABLES 2 Costa Rica 66A (6) Alternate opportunities available P.Q., Item 8; Card 3, Column 33 (refers to other possible employment) C. Attitudes Toward Education (l) (2) (3) (A) (l) (2) (3) (A) (5) (6) Traditional attitudes, Items 3, A, 6, 10, ll; l2, 13, 1A, l8, 19; Card 1, Columns 6l-70 (content) raw score total, Card 2, Columns A5—A6 Traditional attitudes, Items 3, A, 6, 10, ll, l2, l3, lA,;l8, 19; Card 1, Columns 71-80 (intensity) raw score total, Card 2, Columns A7-A8 Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, l5, l6, 17, 20; Card 2, Columns 2l-30 (content) raw score total, Card 2, Columns A9-50 Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, l5, l6, 17, 20; Card 2, Columns 3l-A0 (intensity) raw score total, Card 2, Columns 51—52 Interpersonal Values--Gordon Scale R scores; Card 2, Columns 57-58: (yields compara— tive value score) Recognition B scores; Card 2, Columns 6l-62: (yields asset value score) Benevolence S scores; Card 2, Columns 53-5A: Support C scores; Card 2, Columns 55—56: Conformity I scores; Card 2, Columns 59—60; Independence L scores; Card 2, Columns 63—6A; Leadership Demographic, S.E.S., other control data (All on Card 3; if not excepted) (1) (2) (3) Education: Item 28; Col. 59 Work: Item 39; Card 1, Cols. 6—7 Income and rental (S.E. Class) Item 15; Cols. A2—AA (income); Item 32; Cols. 63-65 270 BASIC VARIABLES 3 Costa Rica 66A (A) Age: Item 9; Cols. 3A-35 (5) Sex: Front sheet of questionnaire, Col. 16, Card 1 (6) Marriage and own family: Item 13, Col. 39 (mar. st.) Item 1A; Col. A0 (no. of children) (7) Size Of family: Item 17; Cols. A6-A7 (bro.); Item 18, Cols. A8-A9 (sis.) (8) Religious affiliation: Item 20; Col. 51 (9) Home ownership: Item 31; Col. 62 (10) Mobility: Items 3A (Col. 75), 35 (Col. 76), 37 (Col. 78)--residency Items 36 (Col. 77), 38 (Col. 79)-— occupational (ll) Rural—Urban: Items 10 (Col. 36),(ll Col. 37), 12 (Col. 38) (12) Employment Status (to be added) (13) No. of Social Classes: Item 25 (Col. 56) F. Self Statements; from Questionnaire, Card 3 (1) Comparative income status, Item 16; Col. A5 (2) Father's comparative income, Item 19; Col. 19 (3) Comparative social class, Item 26; Col. 57 (A) Father's social class, Item 27; Col. 58 (5) Comparative education, Item 29, Col. 60 (6) Father's education, Item 30; Col. 61 G. Religiosity, Questionnaire, Card 3 (l) Perceived importance, Item 21; Col. 52 (2) Perceived norm conformity,Item “03 001- 80 . 271 BASIC VARIABLES A Costa Rica 66A H. Orientation toward job personalism (1) Statement of extent of personalism on job, Item 22, Col. 53 (2) Perceived importance of personal relations, Item 23, Col. 5A I. Diffusion of personal relationships, Questionnaire, Card 3 Per cent of job—social overlap, Item 2A; Col. 55 J. Satisfaction with institutions, Questionnaire, Card 3 (l) Satisfaction with schools Costa Rica, Item 33-1, Column 66 (schools) U.S., Item 33—l,2,3, Columns 67, 68, 69 (elementary, secondary, university) (2) Satisfaction with business Costa Rica, Item 33—2, Column 70 U.S., Item 33-A, Column 70 (3) Satisfaction with labor Costa Rica, Item 33-A, Column 71 U.S., Item 33—5, Column 71 (A) Satisfaction with local government Costa Rica, Item 33—A, Column 72 U.S., Item 33-6, Column 72 (5) Satisfaction with health services Costa Rica, Item 33—5, Column 73 U.S., Item 33-7, Column 73 (6) Satisfaction with churches Costa Rica, Item 33-6, Column 7A U.S., Item 33—8, Column 7A CODE BOOK ATTITUDES TOWARD PHYSICAL DISABILITY IN COSTA RICA AND THEIR DETERMINANTS: A PILOT STUDY East Lansing, Michigan June 1, 196A J Felty and J.E. Jordan INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 9 or 99 will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted in scoring of Education and Handicapped Persons Scales. Code 9 or 99 will always mean there was No Information or the Respondent did not answer. Code 8 or 89 will always mean Don't Know, unless other- wise indicated. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the computer card; the center column contains the question number from the questionnaire and an abreviated form of the item; the column to the right contains the code within each column of the computer card with an explanation Of the code. Coder instructions always follow a line drawn across the page and are clearly indicated. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with "same." CARD 1 1-1 Column Question Detail Code 1,2,3 Nation & 001 — Costa Rica, San Jose Location 002 — United States: Owosso, Michigan 003 — 999, as assigned A,5 Group number 01 — 99 6,7 Respondent 01 — 99 Number 8,9 Deck or 01 Card Number 10, 11 Project 01 — Felty Director 02 - 99, as determined 12 Year of A — 196A Administration 5 - 1965 6 - 1966 7 - 1967 8 - 1968 9 - 1969 0 - 1970 13,1A Week of 99 - No information Administration 1 — Jan. 1 - 7 2 — 8 — 1A 3 - 15 - 21 A - 22 — 28 5 — 29 - Feb. A 6 - Feb. 5 - ll 7 - 12 — 18 8 - 19 — 25 9 - 26 - March A (inc. Feb. 29) 10 - Mar. 5 — 11 11 — 12 - 18 12 - 19 - 25 13 - 26 - Apr. 1 1A - Apr. 2 - 8 15 - 9 - 15 16 - l6 - 22 17 — 23 - 29 18 — 30 - May 6 l9 - May 7 - 13 20 - 1A - 20 21 — 21 — 27 27A CARD 1 1—2 Column Question Detail Code 13,1A Week Of 22 - 29 June 3 (cont'd) Administration 23 - June A 10 2A — 11 17 25 — 18 2A 26 — 25 July 1 27 — July 2 8 28 - 9 15 29 — 16 22 3O - 23 29 31 - 30 Aug. 5 32 - Aug. 6 12 33 - 13 19 3A - 20 26 35 - 27 Sept. 2 36 — Sep» 3 9 37 - 10 16 38 - l7 23 39 - 24 30 A0 - Oct. 1 7 A1 - 8 - 1A A2 - 15 21 A3 — 22 28 AA — 29 Nov. A A5 - Nov. 5 11 A6 — 12 18 A7 - 19 25 A8 - 26 Dec. 2 A9 - Dec. 3 9 50 - 10 16 51 - 17 23 52 - 2A 31 15 Type of 1 - Group Administration 2 - Self-administered 3 - Interview, individual 9 - No information 16 Sex of l - Masculine Respondent 2 - Feminine 9 - NO information Column 275 CARD 1 Question Detail Code 17,18 1-3 Occupation of (01 — 09, Rehab. & Respondent” 01 O2 03 0A 05 06 07 08 09 Spec. Educ.) all administrative persons, public & private schools or agencies teachers, elem. & sec., acad. & vocational school special services (psych., soc. work, speech,etc.) univ. teachers, profes— sors, researchers, specialists, etc. medical: doctors, dentists, etc. other professional: psych., soc. worker, speech, etc., not primarily in public or private schools para-medical: nurse, O.T., R. T., P.T.,etc. unskilled help: hospital aide, janitor, atten— dant, any non-prof., non-tech. role other l. 2. I'INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: OCCUPATION, COLS. 17, 18. Coding information is derived from 2 sources: Occupational description of groups as listed on the administrator's summary sheet. Personal statements by the respondents in question #39 of the questionnaire. Question 39 is the primary source of information. If vague, incomplete or otherwise unscorable, use summary sheet as supplementary data or score entirely from summary sheet. I\.) ‘\J O\ CARD 1 l-A Column Question Detail Code 17,18 Occupation of (10—19, educational (cont'd) Respondent personnel other than rehab. & spec. educ.) 10 - elementary teachers (include elem. v.p.'s, counselors, etc.) 11 — secondary teachers 12 — guidance & personnel workers (psych., soc. work, counselor if not elementary) l3 - other special services: speech, special teacher, audiometric, etc. 1A — administrative: e1em., sec., central Office adm. (inclu. elem. principal, sec. v.p. & prin., etc., if non- teaching) 15 - university teachers, prof's., researchers, specialists, etc. 16 - 19 Open (20-25, medical, other than rehab. & spec. educ.) 20 — general practicioners 21 - surgeons 22 - psychiatrists or psycho- analyists 23 - dentists 2A - all other medical specialties 25 - open (26—29, para-medical, other than rehab. & spec. educ.) 26 - tech. & prof.: nurse, O.T., P.T., R.T., Audio, etc. 27 — Non—tech. & non-prof.: aide, janitor, atten- dent, etc. 28 — 29 open Column Question CARD 1 Detail 1-5 Code 17,18 (cont'd.) Occupation of Respondent (30—39, professional and technical, not sp. ed. & rehab. or medical or educ.) 30 - engineers (degree'd): civil, electrical, mech., etc. 31 - lawyers, atty's., public acc'ts. 32 - ministers, clergymen 33 — musicians 3A — clinical psychologist 35 - researchers, scient— ists, not primarily in education 36 — social workers, etc. 37 - 39 other (A0—A5, business & indus- try, managers, officials, prop's.) A0 — govt. and other bureau- cratic officials: public administrators & Officers, union officials, state inspectors, public utility, telephone officials, etc. A1 — manufacturing, indus- trial officials, exec's., etc. A2 - non—mfg., service in- dustries; bankers, brokers, insurance, real estate, business services, finance, etc. A3 — Retail trades: food, clothing, furniture, gasoline, vehicle sales, etc. AA - general: i.e., manager, executive, etc., no other qualifications A5 — Open Column Question 17,18 278 CARD 1 1-6 Detail Code Occupation of (A6 - A9, farm owners, Respondent operators, and managers, of large farms, e.g., heavy equipment and/or many empl.) A6 - farm owner A7 - farm operator (renter) A8 - farm manager A9 - Open (50 - 59, white collar; Office, clerical,etc.) 50 - clerical & similar: tellers, bookkeepers, cashiers, secretaries, shipping clerks, atten- dents, telephone Ops., library assists., mail clerks and carriers, file clerks, etc. 51 - sales workers: adv— ertising, sales clerks, all mfg., wholesale, retail and other 52 — small shopkeeper or dealer 53 - 59 Open (60-69, blue collar: craftsmen, foremen, kindred work) 60 - craftsmen: carpenters, bakers, electricians, plumbers, machinists, tailors, toolmakers,etc. 61 - foremen: all con- struction, mfg., trans- portation & communica- tion, and other industries 62 - servicemen: telegraph, telephone, etc. - mechanics and repairmen - shoemakers, roofers, painters, and plasterers. O‘\O\ DUO 279 CARD 1 1-7 Column Question Detail Code 17, 18 Occupation of 65 - merchant marine, (cont'd) Respondent sailors (non-military) 66 — bus and cab drivers, motorman, deliverymen, chauffeurs, truck and tractor drivers 67 - operatives of all other mach. equipment (machine, vehicle, misc. mfg.) 68-69 open (70-7A, service and private household workers) 70 - private household: (laundresses, house- keepers, cooks) 71 - firemen & policemen, sheriffs and bailiffs 72 - attendants, profes- sional & personal (valet, masseur, etc.) 73 - misc. attendants & services: hOSpital attendants, bootblacks, cooks, janitors, guards & watchmen, marshalls & constables, barbers, beauticians, porters, waiters, elevator Ops., practical nurses, etc. 7A - open (75-79, military person— nel) 75 - ranking officers, all services (Navy Commander and up, Army & Marine Colonel & up) 76 — junior officers, Army & Air 77 - junior officers, Navy & Marines 280 CARD 1 1—8 Column Question Detail Code 17,18 Occupation of 78 — non-commissioned (cont'd) Respondent personnel, Army & Air 79 80 81 82 83 8A 85 - non-commissioned personnel, Navy & Marines (80—86, Laborers) — small farm owners, renters, and farm laborers (small farm has no heavy equipment, provides minimal income and substance, employs 3 or less persons, full or part time, except for migrant help) - non-mfg., non- industrial: fishermen, hunters, lumbermen, miners, gardeners, teamsters, garage laborers, etc. - manufacturing of durable goods: wood, clay, stone (stonecutter), metal, glass, plastic, machinery of all kinds. - mfg. of non-durable goods: food (bakery, beverages, etc.), tobacco, clothing, cloth, paper, printing, chemicals, rubber, leather, etc. - non-manufacturing industries: railroad, construction, trans- portation workers, etc. - 86 Open 87 88 99 - persons that haven't worked, such as house— wives, students, or others who have never had a regular occupation — don't know — no information, no answer, refusal 281 CARD 1 1-9 Column Question Detail Code 19 Current Employ- 1 Employed or self— ment Status* employed 2 Retired 3 Temporarily out of work A Housewife, but for— merly employed 5 Unable to work (other than retired or housewife) but formerly employed 6 No information 20 Recode of 0 Code 01—09, Rehab., Cols. 17, 18 Spec. Ed. Card 1 1 Code 10-16, Education 2 Code 20—A5, Profes- sional, business, medical 3 Code 50-86, White collar, blue collar, laborer I'INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: EMPLOYMENT STATUS, COL. 19. Code from questionnair, Q. #39, if person clearly states employment status. If no employment stated, and no indica— tion with certainty from the administrator's summary sheet that person is part of an employed group, score 9. (This question to be added to revised questionnaire 282 CARD 1 1-10 Column Question Detail Code 21 1 thru All questions 0 - lo acceptance thru 20 in handicapped l - hi acceptance A0 Content persons scale 9 — no response are to be scored 9,1 after dichoto— mization. See instructions below* NOTE: ”INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING CERTAIN STEPS AND PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME FOR THE EDUCATION SCALE AS FOR THE HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE. THESE PROCEDURES WILL BE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. Reverse the content response numbering (not the intensity response numbering) for items 9, 9, 6, 9;, l9, as follows: I The number of response is changed to IHINIWIJT 1 3 i 3 FOR EACH RESPONDENT, ENTER ALL ITEM SCORES ACROSS THE PAGE BY PUTTING x 's INSTEAD OF NUMBER SCORES (e. g. score A becomes xLxx, 3 becomes xxx, etc.) ITEMS CAN NOW BE DICHOTOMIZED INTO 9,1 CATEGORIES AT THE POINT OF LEAST ERROR. EACH ITEM COLUMN IS ANALYZED INDIVIDUALLY. IT IS NECESSARY TO MAKE TRIAL DIVISIONS AT APPARENT "BREAKS" IN THE CONSISTENCY OF THE COLUMN AND COUNT THE ERRORS IN SCALE TYPE THAT APPEAR ABOVE AND BELOW EACH BREAK, THEN SELECT THE POINT OF LEAST ERROR IN THE ITEM COLUMN. For Handicapped Persons Scale,,Items are scored 0 above the column break, 1 below the column break. FOR ALL OTHER SCALE SCORING, THE REVERSE IS TRUE, ITEMS ARE SCORED l ABOVE THE COLUMN BREAK, 9 BELOW THE COLUMN BREAK. THAT IS, IF THE "BEST" BREAK IS BETWEEN xx and xxx, ALL xxx and xLxx ARE SCORED 1 ALL x and xx ARE SCORED 9. (For h. p. scale, of course, all xxx and xLxx would —be scored 9, all x and xx scored l) 283 CARD 1 1-11 Column Question Detail Code Al 1 thru All questions 0 - lo intensity thru 20 in the intensitx 1 — hi intensity 6O Intensity section of the 9 - no response handicapped persons scale are to be scored 9,; after dich- otomization. See instruc— tions below.* INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCORING (cont'd.) 5. AS SUGGESTED IN WAISANEN'S PAPER (1960) CIRCLE ALL SCORES BELOW THE CUTTING POINT. ALL CIRCLED SCORES ARE READ AS 9, ALL UNCIRCLED SCORES AS 9. (For handicapped persons scale, circle scores above the cutting point.) SCORES MAY BE READ DIRECTLY FROM THE TYPEWRITTEN SHEET TO THE COMPUTER TALLY SHEET. CARE SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PRESERVE THE TYPEWRITTEN DATA FOR POSSIBLE FURTHER HAND SCALE ANALYSIS. ”INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE, INTENSITY (in general, these instructions will apply to intensity statements in all scales). 1. Except for NO RESPONSE, intensity scores are to be determined as noted in the preceding section regarding content, as outlined in caps.,pp. 1-10, 1—11. 2. Those scales which are rejected because of an excess of NO RESPONSE items in respect to content will of course also be rejected for intensity. Intensity questions which are unscored, but which occur when the content part of the question is scored, will be scored as follows: If content score is l or 9, score intensity 9. If content score is 9 or 3, score intensity as indicated in Instruction "3" below. 3. Intensity questons which are unscored, and which occur when the content part of the question is also unscored will be scored at the highest point below the respondent's own median on the other intensity questions in the ques— tionnaire; i.e., if respondent generally scored intensity 28A CARD 1 1-12 Column Question Detail Code 61 3,A,6, Education 0 - lo traditional thru 10,11,12, scale, 1 - hi traditional 7O 13, IA, traditional, 9 - no response 18, 19 content re— Sponses. See instructions* 71 3,A,6, Education 0 — lo intensity thru 10,11,12, scale, 1 - hi intensity 80 1A,l8,19 traditional 9 - no response intensity responses** INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE, INTENSITY (cont'd.) questions either 9 or 9, so that the median was in between 9 and 9, score NO RESPONSE 9. If respondent scored intensity questions in the full range of 9 thru 9, so that his median response was between 9 and 9, score NO RESPONSE 9, and so forth. Circle the coded number on the transcription sheet. A. Circle All 9's entered on the transcription sheet. *INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: EDUCATION SCALE, TRADITIONAL, CONTENT. 1. Items are to be scored as circled by the respondent. 2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages l-9, 1-10, 1—11, handicapped persons scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as applying to the scale. 3. Circle All 9's entered on the transcription sheet. '"INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: EDUCATION SCALE, TRADITIONAL, INTENSITY. Intensity questions are scored as indicated in caps on pages 1-9, l-lO, 1-11 and as noted above, handi- capped persons scale, pages 1—11, 1—12, instructions 1 thru 3. Circle All 9's entered on the transcription sheet. CARD 2 2-1 Column Question Detail Code 1,2,3 Nation 001 - Costa Rica, San Jose Location 002 — United States: Owosso, Michigan 999 — as assigned A,5 Group 01 — 99 Number 6,7 Respondent Ol - 99 Number 8,9 Deck or Card 02 Number 10 Open 11 thru l,2,5,7, Education 0 — lo progressive 2O 8,9,15, scale 1 — hi progressive 16,17, ppogressive 9 - no response 20 content responses* “INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, CONTENT 1. Items are to be scored exactly as circled. 2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages l-9, 1-10, 1—11, handicapped persons scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above. 3. Circle All 9's entered on the transcription sheet. 21 1,2,5,7, thru 8,9,15, 3O 16,17,20 31 thru AO Education scale, progressive intensitl responses* Open 0 - lo intensity 1 - hi intensity 9 — no response INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE,CONTENT Intensity questions are scored as indicated in caps on page 1-9, 1-10, and 1-11 and as noted on page 1—12, handicepped persons scale, instructions 1 thru 3. 286 CARD 2 2—2 Column Question Detail Code A1, A2 Sum of Handicapped OO - 60 item scale, total scores content score 99 - not scorable* l—2O entry on content transcription sheets A3,AA Raw S Value scale, 99 — no score* score Support score**Ol - 32 A5,A6 Raw C Value scale, 99 — no score* score Conformitl Ol — 32 score *All 99"s are to be rescored at the median of the distri- bution for card punching. HEntries for columns A3-5A are obtained through scoring according to SRA Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values, Science Research Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illinois, 1960. For scoring the Spanish version, coders should use the regular SRA edition of the scale. Although the summed scores of the 6 value scales should total 90, scores between 8A and 95 are acceptable. A7,A8 Raw R Value scale, 99 - no score* score Recognition Ol — 32 score A9,50 Raw I Value scale, 99 - no score* score Independence 01 - 32 score 51, 52 Raw B Value scale, 99 - no score* score Benevolence Ol - 32 score 53, 5A Raw L Value scale, 99 - no score* score Leadership 01 - 32 score 55, 66 Open 287 CARD 2 2-3 Column Question Detail Code 67,68 Sum of Adjusted 00 - 15 item totals based 99 - none* scores, on item dicho- 1 thru tomization, 20 H.P. Scale, content Content 69, 70 Sum of Adjusted 00 - 15 item totals based 99 — none* scores on item dicho- 1-20, tomization, intensity H.P.Scalei Intensity 71, 72 Sum of Adjusted item totals based scores 3, on item dicho- A,6,lO, tomization, 11,12,13, Educ.—Tr.Scale 1A,18,19 Content 73,7A Sum of Adjusted 00 — 10 item totals based 99 — none* scores 3, on item dicho- A,6,10, tomization, 11,12,13, Educ.—Tr.Scale lA,l8,l9 Intensipy 75, 76 Sum of Adjusted 00 - 10 item totals based 99 - none“ scores 1, on item dicho- 2,5,7,8, tomization 9,15,16, Educ.-Prog. 17,20 Scale,Content 77,78 Sum of Adjusted 00 - 10 item totals based 99 - none* scores 1, on item dicho- 2,5,7,8, tomization 9,15,16 Educ.Prog. 17,20 Scale,lntensipy *All 99's are to be rescored at the for card punching. median of distribution CARD 3 3—1 Column Question Detail Code 1,2,3 Nation, 001 — Costa Rica, San Jose Location 002 - United States: Owosso, Michigan 003 - 999 as assigned A,5 Group 01 - 99 Number 6,7 Respondent 01 - 99 Number 8,9 Deck or Card 03 Number 10 Open 11 l,A,B,C No. of differ- 0 — none ent handi- l - one capped persons 2 - two listed* 3 - three or more 12 Q-l, A Handicapped 0 - (10) none group known 1 - (l) blind, (2) partially best* blind 2 — (3) deaf, (A) partially deaf 3 - (5) crippled or ampu- tated limbs, (6) dis- figured (facially), (7) C.P. *INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODER: Q—l, A., Column 11, 12 If Box 9 or 9 is filled in but 9 is not, score answer for 9 and score lower boxes 0. If Boxes are not filled in, score all boxes 0. 13-2A Open 25 2(1-9) Type of contact 1 - (l), (2), (A)--If any relationship 1, 2, or A scored, score item as l 0 - If 99 1,2, or A, score item as O. 289 CARD 3 3-2 Column Question Detail Code 27-31 Open 26 3 Number of 0 — (1), (2), (3), (A), contact (5), less than 100 occasions 1 - (6) — more than 100 32 7 Enjoyment of 0 - (1), (2) - dislike contact with l — (5), (3), (no response) physically neutral handicapped 2 - (A) like 33 Open 3A, 35, Age 99 - no response 9 15 - 15 years 16 - 16 years 25 - 25 years A0 - A0 years 36 10 Community in l - (9) no response, (1) which reared city, (2) city suburb O - (3) country town, (A) country, (5) other 37—Al Open A2,A3, 15 Yearly income* 001 - less than l,A99 AA (a or b) colones 002 - 1,500 — 2,999 003 — 3,000 - A,A99 00“ - 9,500 - 5,999 005 - 6,000 - 7,499 006 - 7,500 - 8,999 007 - 9,000 — 10,499 008 - 10,500 — 11,999 009 - 12,000 13,499 010 - 13,500 14,999 011 - 15,000 — 17,999 012 - 18,000 20,999 013 - 21,000- 24,499 01A - 2A,500 — 26,999 015 - 27,000 - 29,999 016 - 30,000 - 3A,999 017 - 35,000 - 39,999 018 - A0,000 - and over 888 - don't know 999 - no reSponse 290 CARD 3 3-3 Column Question Detail Code A2,A3, 15 Yearly income* 021 - less than 1,000 AA (a or b) dollars (con'td) 022 — 1,000 - 1,999 023 - 2,000 2,999 02“ - 39000 3,999 025 - A,000 A,A99 026 - A,500 A,999 027 - 5,000 5,499 028 - 5,500 5,999 029 - 6,000 6,A99 030 - 5,500 6.999 O31 - 79000 7:“99 032 - 7,500 7,999 033 - 8,000 8,999 03A - 9,000 - 11,999 035 - 12,000 — 14,999 036 - 15,000 - 17,999 037 — 18,000 - 20,999 038 - 21,000 - and over 888 — don't know 999 — no response 0A1 — francs, marks, etc. to be coded as necessary *INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER: references to time (i.e., month or year). Spanish version omitted Most salaries will be stated in months and must be multiplied by 12. Judgment will be required; e.g., a teacher (elementary) may make about A00-500 colones per month, about that or less. a laborer also No teacher would make A,000 colones a month, though a family income of 2,000 is possible. A5 Open A6,A7 17 Number of 00 - none brothers 01 - one 02 - two 03 - three, etc. 99 - no reSponse A8,A9 18 Number of same sisters 50,51 Open CARD 3 Column Question Detail 3-A Code 52 21 53 22 5A 23 55 24 56-58 59 28 Importance of religion, self statement Amount of personal rela— tionships on the job Importance of personal rela— tionships on the job Employment relationships govern social relationships Open Amount of education 0 - (0), (1), (2), (no response) not impor— tant l - (3) important 1 - (0), (8) 2 - (2) 3 - (3) A - (A), no response 5 - (5) 6 - (6) 7 - (7) 0 - (l), (2), (3), (no response) not important 1 - (A) very important , (8) NOW)? kw l\)r—-’ I AAA/\AAA ) ) ) ), no response ) ) ) Nmmzwmo ) 3 years or less ) 6 years or less ) 9 years or less ) 12 years or less in Spanish, 11 or less) - (5) some college or university (6) college or univer- sity degree - (7) post-degree study (8) advanced degree - no response** (9) other* JIUUNH I (1 (2 - (3 (4 ( 0\ U1 l l “INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER: Q-28, Column 59. Responses A teaching certificate is scored the same as a college degree (6). In general, reasonably be considered as academic extensions of regular to other. responses which can '\) \O I\) CARD 3 3-5 Column Question Detail Code 60-6A Open 65 32 Rent per month 1 - 50 or less colones 2 - 51 to 150 3 — 151 to 300 A — 301 to 600 5 — 601 to 1,000 6 - 1,001 to 1,500 7 - 1,501 or more 8 - don't know 9 — no response 66 33—1,Sp. Satisfaction O - (1) poor, (2) fair with schools. 1 - (3) good, (8) no Spanish, sec- opinion, (9) no tion 1. response English 2 - (A) excellent sections 1,2,3 67 33-1, E. Satisfaction same with elementary schools (English sec- tion 1, no Spanish) 68 33—2, E. Satisfaction same with secondary schools (English sec- tion 2, no Spanish) *INSTRUCTIONS TO CODER: Q—28, Column 59 (continued). school should be scored as closely as possible within the categories 1-8; e.g., private academies, secretarial schools. Technical, vocational, and other non-academic training designed for specific work applications are not scored. If two or more responses are scored, record the highest score. i*‘Rescore 9's at median for all in group (Cols. A, 5). Column Question \) KC) ' JU CARD 3 Detail Code 3—6 69 70 71 72 73 7A 75-77 33-33 13' 33-7 E- (33-5 Sp.) 33—8 E. (33-6 Sp.) Satisfaction with universi- ties (English section 3, no Spanish) Satisfaction with business (English sec- tion A,Spanish section 2) Satisfaction with labor (English section 5, Spanish sec— tion 3) Satisfaction with local government (English section 6, Spanish section A) Satisfaction with health services (English section 7, Spanish section 5) Satisfaction with churches (English section 8, Spanish section 6) Open same 8 ame S ame S ame S ame same CARD 3 3-7 Column Question Detail Code 78 37 Frequency of 0 - (no response), (1) residency none, (2) 1 time change last 1 - (3) 2-3, (A) A-6, 10 years (5) 7-10, (6) over 10 79 38 Frequency of same job change last 10 years 80 A0 Observance of 0 - (I) seldom, (2) some— religious times practices 1 - (3) usually, (no response) 2 — (A) almost always 1295 ATTITUDE AND VALUE SCALES, RAW DATA Transcription Sheet; Costa Rica (66A) TOTAL TOTAL CQNLENT TOTAL TOTAL CONTENT TOTAL TOTAL CONTENT H.P. E.T. E.P. HANDICAPPED PERSONS EDUCATION SCALE EDUCATION SCALE SCALE (Card 1) TRADITIONAL (Card 1) PROGRESSIVE (Card 2) N I ’ I CONTENT EINTENSITY CONTENT : INTENSITY CONTENT : .INTENSIIY 1. (21): (41) 3. (61)§ (71) 1. (21)§ (31) l I I 2. (22)i (42) 4. (62); (72) ' 2. (22): (32) I I l f 3. (23): (43) 6. (63); (73) 5._____ (23); _____ (33) I 4. (24)E (44) 10. (64)§ (74) 7. (24)E (34) l I 5. (25)i (45) 11. (65): (75) 8. (25): (35) I I I 6. (26): (46) 12. (66)! (76) 9. (26)! (36) I 7. (27)E (47) 13. (67)i (77) 15. (27)E (37) I I 8. (28)! (48) 14. (68): (78) 16. (28)! (38) I I 9. (29): (49) 18. (69)! (79) 17. (29); (39) I 10. (30)E (50) 19. (70)i (80) 20. (30)! (A0) —— _ . ' I 11. (31); (51) (A I (A (“9 I ((31 I 7-I 7- -' - ' 12. (32): (52) ”T 48): A8) ”T ————— 50): ———-—- 52) : Card 2 : Card 2 : 13. (33): (53) ‘ 14. (34)E (54) VALUE SCALE : (Card 2) 15- ____ (35):___———155) §_Score (53-5A) Support 16$ (36); (56) 9 Score (55—56) Conformity 17. (37); (57) 9 Score (57-58) Recognition I 18. (38}: (58) 9 Score (59-60) Independence I 19. (39,E (59) 9 Score (61-62) Benevolence I 20. (A0); (60) 9 Score (63-6A) Leadership (41- (43— *T 42) 44) Card 2 Card 2 Enter all content T (Total) scores in appropriate boxes at top. Respondent Group Number Respondent Personal No. Respondent Location NO. 2963 1H3.33V III 3H lI 8-3 Amav AEILV mm Ammv mH AmImV “HAL III AmImV mm Ammo ma II 3.3 Acwv Amqu mm “FMS HH Ammo III AmImV mm ALMS OH $8 II :78 mm 5.33 I a lame III ALIHV mm Ammo m 33 II 3: mm 88 a Ams.:s.mmv_III III III mm Afimv m Ammo III Hm Aomv Amv m “HES III om Ammo Amv m Aomv III am Ammo AHV m Ammv III mm AENV : Ammo III Am Aomv m :5 II mm 33 E m AmmV_III mm Asmv Amv m III Aoa.amv Ammo :m Ammo ARV m III Ama.amv Azmv mm Ammo ALL m III III AAa.amV Aomv o: Ammo . mm Aflmv Amv m Aawv III mm Ammv III Hm Aomv Ago m AmEv III am Afimv III om Amfiv “mo m :5 I 9 83 II 2 a: E m Awwv .III mm as.mzv III III ma AEHV Adv m a: II is 3.8: II II 2 Sam: I a: A III AmIov .III III AJAV AmImv mm Amav 0H Asd.mflv Amv H III AmImV III III .II III Ammo AmIAV mm Azz.ms.mzv ma ANH.HHV A