ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF TEXAS MEXICAN—AMERICANS TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION: A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS By Kenneth Noah Morin Statement of Problem One major aim of this study was to investigate the predominant value orientations and attitudes held by four Mexican—American groups toward the mentally retarded. These included Special Education and Rehabilitation workers, Parents of the Mentally Retarded, Regular School Teachers, and Parents of the Nonretarded. Another purpose was to assess the predictive validity of hypothesized determinants of attitudes, including demographic, socio—psychological, contactual, and knowledge factors. Although these sub— stantive aims are important, credibility of the results depends on the adequacy of the measurement base upon which the results stand. In order to research the problems which have been leveled at attitudinal research in the past, Jordon (1968) has applied and extended the conceptual facet analysis scheme set forth by Guttman. ..\_-~ v- Kenneth Noah Morin Instrumentation A research instrument based on facet analysis was developed by Jordan and his students called the Attitude Behavior Scale — Mental Retardation (ABS—MR). This scale consisted of six levels, each corresponding to a certain level of the hypothesized attitude universe. Following the criteria for scale construction set forth by Magnuson (1966, p. 207) those items correlating highest with the total score for each level but having low correlations with each other were included in the final scale. Included with the scale were those items that tapped the predictor variables of the study which Jordan (1968) has labeled determinants of attitudes (demographic, socio- psychological, contactual, and knowledge). A pilot study, using the "known group” approach, was conducted to test the predictive ability of the instrument. Except for a few anomalies, the instrument did discriminate between levels as well as being a sound criterion on which to base predictions. Design and Analysis Procedures Using the ”known group" method, the present research sampled four groups selected from three Southwest Texas border cities. Each sample contained 50 subjects except the parents of the nonretarded group which had 82 subjects. The proportion of males to females was unequal, there being Kenneth Noah Morin more females than males. Random selection of subjects was difficult, however, an attempt was made to select randomly in several ways: (a) selecting subjects from several border areas instead of from just one; (b) sampling different sections of the community in the case of the parents of the mentally retarded and parents of the non- retarded; and (c) sampling different schools and retarda- tion facilities in the communities in the case of the spe— cial education and rehabilitation worker, and regular school teacher groups. The three cities contained a high proportion of Mexican-American persons, 85% of some areas being populated by persons with Spanish surnames. The four determinants of attitudes were represented by 29 independent variables which were intercorrelated with content and intensity scores of the criterion (ABS-MR) across each level (including total scores). This facili— tated testing fourteen hypotheses using simple correlations, multiple correlations, one- and two—way analysis of variance statistical techniques, and the Q2 statistic. Results The results of this study indicate values, knowledge, contact, and certain demographic variables were effective predictors of attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Strong support was given to the use of facet analysis in scale construction when the four simplex matrices formed a < . - 44- r‘m" \ s.. .\_ . ~-..— _ ... J»..- s-.. '._ ’W v..~ , 1w,» a g- Kenneth Noah Morin a Guttman simplex as predicted. This finding also sup- ports the multidimensional quality of attitudes. Recommendations were made to: (a) incorporate the present study into a larger cross—cultural study and (b) develop an attitude change study using the ABS-MR as the criterion. Suggestions were made to improve cross-cultural sample selection. ATTITUDES OF TEXAS MEXICAN—AMERICANS TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION: A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS By Kenneth Noah Morin A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1969 («I III I“ rh~ Koy . r»,- r I‘ A. ‘-v t *x ‘ «.1... 8“ ..‘ , l . '0.~ A, § .1 64/ 75k /7/—— z 71 7o PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators, as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of instru- mentation, theoretical material, as well as technical and analysis procedures were both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many aspects although the data were different in each study (Erb, 1969; Gottlieb, 1969; Hamersma, 1969; Harrelson, 1969; Maierle, 1969) as well as certain design, procedural, and analysis methods. The interpretations of the data in each study are those of the author. ii “V. .4 - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am most deeply indebted to Dr. John E. Jordan who should be credited as having been the originator of many of the ideas presented in this thesis as well as the inde— fatigable source of assistance, encouragement, and benign criticism without which this thesis could not have been completed. I am grateful to Dr. Gregory Miller, Dr. Robert Craig, and Dr. Alfred Dietze for serving as members of my doctoral committee. I am particularly indebted to Mrs. Bonny Recknel of Loredo, Texas, Mr. Juan Armendoriz of El Paso, Texas, and Dr. Arthur Linsky and Mr. LeRoy Moczygemba of San Antonio, Texas. Without the help of these community leaders I would not have been able to obtain my experi- mental subjects. Dr. Ira Iscoe, Director of Counseling— Psychological Services at the University of Texas at Austin was gracious in allowing me time off my internship as well as referring me to significant community figures in Southwest Texas in order to facilitate data collection. The friendship of Lawrence Harrelson, a fellow doc— toral student, was important to me while 1 was a student at Michigan State University. Larry's writing skill Served as a model and exemplified what clarity in writing mSans. iii DEDICATION To Viive, Mina armastan sind. iv PREFACE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS DEDICATION LIST OF TABLES. LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Substanti Methodolo II. REVIEW OF RE RETARDATION. Self Atti Peer and Teacher A Parental Employer Attitude Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS ve Aim gical Approach. SEARCH ON ATTITUDES TOWARD MENTAL tudes. . . . Community Attitudes ttitudes. Attitudes Attitudes Change III. INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES. ABS—MR Scale (Criterion) ABS-MR Test Development Data Detail Subjec Facet s of Administration ts. Theory Scale Construction ABS— MR Intensity Facet Conjoi Theory Data Analysis. nt Analysis. . Predictor Variables Page ii iii iv viii xii \IO\ 12 15 21 22 31 35 37 37 A0 A6 A6 50 51 51 57 Chapter IV. V. Demographic Variables Change Orientation Educational Aid and Planning . Contact with Handicapped Persons. Efficacy. Knowledge About Mental Retardation Reliability of the ABS-MR Validity of the ABS-MR Content Validity Concurrent and Predictive Validity Construct Validity DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES Sample . Hypotheses of the Study. Relating Attitudes and Values. Relating Attitudes and Knowledge. Relating Attitudes and Contact . Relating Attitudes and Religiosity Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables . . . . . . Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation. . . . . . . Relating Attitudes to Opinions of Educational Aid and Planning Relating Attitudes and Group Membership . . . . Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality Analysis Procedures Descriptive Statistics Correlational Statistics . Analysis of Variance Statistics The Q2 Statistic . . . RESULTS OF THE STUDY. Relating Attitudes and Values. Relating Attitudes and Knowledge. Relating Attitudes and Contact . Relating Attitudes and Religiosity Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables . . . . . . Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation. . . . . vi Chapter Relating Attitudes Educational Aid Relating Attitudes Membership . Relating Attitudes to Opinions of and Planning and Group and Multidimensionality Summary VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSS Summary of the Study. Major Purpose 1nstrumentation ION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Design and Analysis Procedures Research Finding: and Suggestions for Further Research. Discussion Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Variables Relating Attitudes Orientation. Relating Attitudes Educational Aid Relating Attitudes Membership . Relating Attitudes and Values. and Knowledge. and Contact and Religiosity and Demographic and Change to Opinions of and Planning and Group and Multidimensionality Recommendations for Further Research Cross—Cultural Research. Attitude Change Experiments Sampling. Statistical Analysis. Replication. REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix Appendix Appendix OU73> Code Book vii Statistical Material Attitude-Behavior Scale: ABS—MR Page 108 111 115 116 116 116 117 118 119 120 120 121 122 125 126 127 I32 13A 136 138 138 139 139 1A0 1A0 1A1 156 157 179 212 L. - v Table 1. 10. 11. Page Basic Facets to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Universe . . . 38 Facet Profiles of Attitude Subuniverses . . 39 Basic Facets Used to Determine Conjoint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . A1 Conjoint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction . A2 Five—Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Profiles, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Permutations . . . . . . . . . . A3 Analysis of Simplex Correlations of the ABS—MR Test Development Data for the ED 200, Belize, and SER Samples . . . . 52 Analysis of Theoretical Correlations of "Perfectly Ordered" Matrices with Equal and Unequal Differences Between Correlations . . . . . . . . . . 53 Item Analysis of the Mental Retardation Scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for the ABS-MR on Seven Groups . . . . . . . . . 63 The ABS—MR: Basic Variable List by IBM Card and Column . . . . . . . . . 7O Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS—MR Attitude Levels and Values for Mexican—American SER, PMR, RS”, and PNR Groups . . . . . . . . . . . 78 viii Table 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 22. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Levels and Know— ledge Variable for Mexican-American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups Correlations and Significance Levels between the Six ABS—MR Attitude Intensity Levels and Amount of MR Contact for Mexican— ' American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Intensity Levels and Amount of HP Contact for Mexican— American SER, PMR, RST, and PER Groups. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Contact Variables for the Mexican-American Total Group Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Contact Variables for Mexican—American SER Group. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Contact Variables for Mexican-American PMR Group. . . . Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS-MR and Contact Variables for Mexican—American RST Group. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS-MR and Contact Variables for Mexican—American PNR Group. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Levels and Religion Importance for Mexican-American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS—MR Attitude Levels and Amount of Education for Mexican-American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Levels and Age for the Mexican—American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups. . . ix Page 79 81 82 87 88 89 9O 93 L» I .C Table 23. Sample Size, Means, Adjusted Means, and Significance Test Results for the Four Mexican—American Sample Groups on the ABS-MR 2A. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Change Orientation Variables for the Mexican—American Total Groups 25. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS-MR and Change Orientation Variables for Mexican-American SER Group 26. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Change Orientation Variables for Mexican—American PMR Group 27. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Change Orientation Variables for Mexican—American RST Group 28. Multiple and Partial Correlations Between ABS—MR and Change Orientation Variables for Mexican—American PNR Group 29. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Levels and Govern- ment Aid to Education for Mexican-American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups. . . . . 30. Correlations and Significance Levels Between the Six ABS-MR Attitude Levels and Educa— tional Planning for Mexican—American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Groups 31. Analysis of Simplex Correlations of the ABS—MR for the Mexican—American SER, PMR, RST, and PNR Samples Appendix A.l.' N's, Means and Standard Deviations for the Four Mexican—American Sample Groups by C‘ 08X 0 O O I O O O O A.2. Correlation Matrix for the SER Graduate Student Sample. Page 97 100 102 103 105 107 109 110 11A 158 160 L.» r L r..a Table Page A.3. Correlation Matrix for the M.S.U. Sophomore Education Student Sample . . . 162 A.A. Correlation Matrix for the Belize Primary Teacher Sample. . . . . . . . . . 16A A.5. Correlation Matrix for the Mexican—American SER Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 166 A.6. Correlation Matrix for the Mexican—American P‘I‘IIIR saNLIDle . O O O O O C O C O C 168 A.7. Correlation Matrix for the Mexican-American RST Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 170 A.8. Correlation Matrix for the Mexican-American I)IJR S£1n11:)18 O 0 O O O O O O O O O 172 A.9. Correlation Matrix for the Total Mexican- American Sample . . . . . . . . . 17A A.10. N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Four Groups Plus Males and Females . . . 176 A.ll. Item to Subscale Correlations for Seven Samples for the ABS—MR: Arranged by Subscale or Level. . . . . . . . . 177 xi Figure LIST OF FIGURES Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Attitudes Toward Mentally Retarded Persons . . . . . . . . . . Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Conjoint and Disjoint Struction of Attitudes Toward Specified Persons xii CHAPTER I INTtODUCTION In a modern society such as the United States con- siderable value has been placed on the development and utilization of human resources. Not only must the intel— lectually capable be valued, but those persons whose mental capacity is limited must also be valued and per— ceived as potential contributors. Commitment to such a proposition is reflected in increased efforts to find ways of dealing with mental retardation. The increased awareness of mental retardation in the United States and around the world can be attributed to such factors as: expanding population, advances in medical science-—which has saved the lives of many who would otherwise have died, advances in the behavioral sciences, and the increasing complexity of modern tech— nological societies. Just as the physically disabled Person was comparatively handicapped in primitive soci— eties, So too the mentally retarded can be handicapped in a society relying on "brain power rather than brawn." Wright (1960), Hutt and Gibby (1965) and Gunzburg (1958) have shown that a high relationship exists between the type of adjustment made by the mentally retarded and the reactions of society to the mentally retarded. Not only will the reactions of society directly influence the mentally retarded but the attitudes of a society toward the mentally retarded will indirectly influence the types of programs made available for the treatment, care, and rehabilitation of the retarded. The preceding discussion imples that through early and adequate rehabilitation and special education ser— vices the mentally retarded can develop their remaining potential for the benefit of themselves and society. The extent of commitment of a society to the full education of its own "outsiders" (the mentally retarded, physically handicapped and minority groups) is an index of the funda— mental commitment of that society to democratization and liberalization of education generally, and it is postu- lated that such commitment is not compatible with the belief that the individual is subservient to the State. Thus the type of commitment evident in special education and rehabilitation programs may be indicative of the di— rection in which general education needs to develop. Greenbaum and Wang (1965, p. 257) point out that "the likelihood of such a societal commitment depends in great part on the attitudes and conceptions of mental re— tardation held by the public in general and, in particular, by those individuals who have direct contact with the men— tally retardate at significant times in his life." The groups of the present study are congruent with the preceding groups alluded to by Greenbaum and Wang: (a) parents of the retarded, (b) those who work with the retarded, (c) regular school teachers, and (d) parents of the non-retarded. W'The problem of mental retardation is world wide and is especially prevalent in the underdeveloped coun- tries of the world. Because of advances in communication and transportation no nation can remain truly insular. A world community is in the making and this implies that each nation within the community should have a responsi— bility for its neighbor. The more developed nations of the world have the responsibility to help the more under- developed countries to help themselves. 5 One problem that can be attacked is mental defi- ciency. Before the educational or social planner can develop programs and techniques to cope with the problem of mental retardation within a country, that particular country should be thoroughly understood. One way to understand how a country feels about its mentally re— tarded is through attitudinal research.. One methodological approach to attitudinal research is being developed by Louis Guttman of Israel. This ap- proach may prove to be the most consistently exact and systematic approach to attitudinal research yet developed. Jordan (1968) in a comprehensive review of the literature on attitudinal studies found that many of the studies were inconclusive or contradictory. rn—. ¥wa_...‘ . . v 'V'\‘ _ ‘ L." ~11. 7bv"-- ‘ k I; ‘. .'~0; .3 ~ ’ _ ‘ h-VT- ....__“..‘ .I "~0:‘ ‘.._ ~Y.:‘ ‘v. 1. ~- l»‘ -.,_H ‘ a r- 7“' L. s k... p. ‘7?;~. . ‘kx. '- ‘k‘ 7',- 4“.” . ‘- -‘Iq—" v r" _, a . x p.‘ ‘g‘ 4 .‘ ‘\. ‘ ..—W A I“ I“ ‘ —‘ ‘ ”s "A a vh~h _ ~ I ‘ L ~, \. .. ._‘. T '7‘- .c \ \‘V ‘. “ _\ .\ ‘1 ~,‘ A‘, ‘- ' .&‘r‘\ L\‘ \. 10 "mentally ill," ”emotionally disturbed," and "neurotic") to over 300 adult respondents who were selected from among the following populations: (a) parents of mentally re— tarded children, (b) professional experts who were likely to advise or treat the mentally retarded——i.e., voca- tional counselors, high school teachers of the mentally retarded, school psychologists, and physicians, (c) potential employees, and (d) volunteers who worked with institutionalized mental retardates. Nine of the 21 scales measured the three factors of Evaluation (e.g., good—bad, pleasant-unpleasant), Potency (e.g., strong-weak, rugged—delicate), and Activity (e.g., fast-slow, hot—cold) found by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) through factor analytic work on semantic differential data to most consistently and prominently describe the semantic space in which terms and concepts may be ordered in general. The remaining 12 scales were assembled in an attempt to assess attitudes toward the retardate's social stimulus value, his physical health, and his psychological properties or attributes. The findings indicated that the paraprofessionals had a significantly more positive attitude than any of the Other groups, with the parents having significantly more DOSitive attitudes than both the professionals and the em- ployers——the latter had the most negative attitudes of the p...«»~ . y . r... 7‘" .-- u.)- . n Opd‘ '. A' ‘ A‘VV-- -. ~ - .3, ,x -u \ 'OVn-y V. n .. v‘ , ' ‘r F l‘ A . .‘I ‘ u‘ . ‘4 \ V.“y-.‘ ~- ~ ¢»-.,‘_ ‘ . 4-. _ .— y.. I:.. _ wfi.‘: ““ ' V--.‘ 6“. .- t ‘ - nav""‘__ \‘ ‘. ~ ~ .,.~ wk‘wv .,, v‘._ 4 h. 4... ‘. r. . "I... - ~ v -, v -- ‘ rsfi A '._ ~~. A”. 4“, . . x U- ¢ .‘ u“" >~ ‘ ‘stL; V 'K‘ ‘ Q. ,4 I v ‘r -v’ -‘ ‘\0.‘ ~ ,- i ‘ 5 usy'“. \L w ,. y...“ ‘ivN V V s. .- .. bI . .1 ‘h n 1“ '\ . ,c' .v V- ‘45:\ Q gr“ ‘. ._ "s n — a ‘ .. ‘- \- vh J n. ‘. . ~ .. ‘h V \ . rat V, ~‘ ‘» y ‘« ‘ r . .. v. .- : . \- V~ ‘. 11 groups measured while the professionals had a significantly more positive score than the employers on the Evaluative factor only. It was found that the general structure of concep— tions of the mentally retarded was the same for all groups, i.e., the scores covaried. This conception, however, was mainly a negative one. Only three of the scales averaged in a direction just barely positive while seven were strongly negatively evaluated. Parents and professionals were clearly ambivalent on the Evaluative factor. In addition, it was found that all groups had a more negative attitude and conception of the mentally retarded than of the mentally ill. Analysis of the data by demographic variables yielded the following results: (a) the less well educated and those of lower socioeconomic standing were more favorably disposed toward the mentally retarded, (b) female subjects tended to have more positive conceptions of mental re- tardates than males (this latter finding, however, may have been confounded by the sexual composition of the Various groups), and (c) there was a non—significant trend for older subjects to hold more positive images of the mentally retarded than younger subjects. Greenbaum and Wang (1965) offer some explanations for their findings and their study was, in general, well conceived and executed. A question might be raised as to --.<.-_r~, w . 5A.- v..». -. .-\.. ‘L’. ‘-r._1 V-Av..\.. . ‘- w. pin 1 "“)Q\ ‘ . .- ‘V *4" v-. r, ‘ - _ ' ~.-\..,-k 'l "Af‘r .4 ' ‘-.'v~. n ~ I .l A _ c.‘ *\‘V '13‘, u 5.} -“'. ._ - ‘~..‘ ”411‘.“ '4 .‘ -“s.~r‘ '4‘. .‘ “1 K . xv, 1 J 4"“. I fl ’ .. \ “‘- . .‘g‘ -l x, w ‘ ’1 "‘d -"3 . J- r“ " 'v- "'\ 4 . t § - ‘ y“ LA g ..v ,— V.. (' ~\ IL 4‘ \' ’ §‘ k \ ..“ . -\ ‘ " I”: Vs '\ . _ u A \— ~. - 'x. -Nrs‘. ‘L -‘ ‘ ~ ,l \ 12 whether some differences may have been lost as a result of treating the data for counselors, special education teachers, and physicians under one concept, i.e., ”pro- fessional experts." The authors offer a rationale for treating the four terms referring to mental retardation under one concept but one wonders how various groups reacted to various labels——the authors do state that reactions to the terms "mentally retarded" and "moron" were generally more favor— able than the reactions to the terms "idiot" and "imbe— cile." The attitudes being measured in the above study, however, appear to fall at the Stereotypic level in Guttman's (1959) paradigm and do not tap other levels of Guttman's attitude universe (see Table 5 in Chapter 111). None of the other studies encountered attempted to compare as many different groups as comprehensively as did Greenbaum and Wang (1965). Perhaps the most reasonable approach to organizing the remaining studies is according to the topics being studied. Self Attitudes A few studies have appeared which were concerned With self attitudes among the retarded. For example, in attempting to develop a system of personality assessment based on the institutionalized female retardate's con- ception of herself and her world, Guthrie, Butler, and ‘0‘ I '(L . ‘v L L. L. n. z. x; a . «a n. h. n. .L C. .. VL. Q U 0‘. ‘\L r». d (P.- C “An 5.1 ~.~ . ,V- I I Q ‘ . h. r.. r; .... . . .t :. ..-.. T. . . ... .7 a.» '5 .e :. ._ . . e . a; «C :\ 1. . . . ‘ a.“ 2‘ .T L. YI- his l3 Gorlow (1961) found a high positive correlation between how the retardate saw herself and how she believed others perceived her. In a 196A study, Guthrie, Butler, Gorlow and White, again using institutionalized female retardates, found that self attitudes were often defensive and designed more to protect the self from painful rejection than to gain approval through achievement. Kniss, Butler, Gorlow, and Guthrie (1962), with a similar sample, found no relation— ship between ideal self attitudes, as determined by a Q-sort, age, IQ, and length of institutionalization. Similarly, McAfee and Cleland (1955) found no difference between the self—ideal self discrepancy between adjusted and maladjusted educable males. McCoy (1963) found that a sample of educable mentally retarded underachievers, when compared to a matched sample of retarded achievers, had a significantly lower degree of realistic self confidence as well as a lower and less realistic level of aspiration. There was also a non— significant trend for achievers to have a higher degree of perceived parental acceptance and intrinsic as Opposed to extrinsic self valuation. Snyder (1966), in a well designed study, correlated academic achievement with measures of personality, self attitudes, and anxiety in a sample of mildly retarded Children obtained from a variety of settings and found v Arr‘ V Y,’ b .\ a P .c .r T 3; L,» A. 1”‘ * & V h \ .V .n . . . . . .r A: ,I« n ... .nn s c .x . .su «K» v. .5 .P N v. . .p ~ I \ 14 'significant differences in the expected direction between high and low achievers on all three measures. Snyder also noted that even the high achievers generally showed poorer adjustment than normal IQ children. Meyerowitz (1962) compared groups of educable first grade retardates who had been randomly assigned to regular and special classes to a normal criterion group on an index of self derogation specially developed for his research. Meyerowitz found that the retardates as a group were more derogatory of themselves than the normal children. Con— trary to expectation, he also found that the retardates assigned to regular classes were less derogatory of them- selves than those assigned to special classes—-perhaps because their age had not yet permitted significant failure experiences thought to result from regular class placement. Laing and Chazan (1966) used a sociometric technique to study group structure in a sample of classrooms for the retarded in South Wales. The authors concluded that their results did not agree with the results of an earlier study by Moreno (193A) who found that the organization of groups in which mentally retarded children prevail revealed nu- merous unreciprocated choices, a low number of mutual pairs, and many isolates. Miller (1956) had earlier used the sociometric pro— cedure to compare social status and socioempathic abili— ties (awareness of one's own and others' status) among a .4 f‘ «r‘ I”. ‘,_v..~ $.. 9- .S a: .Ky r... s k. 54‘ \\\ 15 mentally retarded, normal, and superior upper elementary children in regular classrooms. It was found that the retardates proportioned their choices across groups equally while the superior and normal children generally favored the superior children most and the retardates least. Socioempathic ability followed the expected pattern with the superior children showing more ability than normals who in turn showed more ability than the retardates. Peer and Community Attitudes Smith and Hurst (1961) found a significant relation— ship_between motor ability and peer acceptance in a group of trainable and educable retardates attending a day school. Clark (1964a) reported a similar finding using a large sample of normal fifth grade boys and girls and their atti- tudes toward a "special” group of educable mentally retarded in the same school. Employing an interview and content analysis technique Clark found the retarded were at times evaluated unfavorably, the normals reacted more to their appearance and athletic ability than to their intellectual or academic ability. fiClark (196Ab) in a separate study found that normal Children in classes adjacent to a class for mentally re- tarded did not identify photographs of retardates with their special class status in an elementary school. An attempt was then made to ascertain perceptions of the Special class more directly, and it was found that only ,6 s . It C. «.4. W. W“ «.6 . \C .v i. p . d..,~. & .- ‘\» $4 a . «4/ na¢ :» W“ HA 0 .L. pAa L» .3» . J a» . . .\u C. . .. H. .1. 1. r . .r; n . g .8 4 a .14 t. V. . .~» . A 3» ram ‘ . . v 2v 5 . . . a: r c. .9» P_A . . “It Y. . A a :u . v “Nu-‘3 F» ‘u‘v‘ a. _\ u« H. v. f‘. ml» av MA“ rkc 5. is we » . .yn .~. Pa‘ s u ‘0. r; a g a A ..~\ Phy “s a .. Q. a .9... 16 10.9% of the children's remarks about the class were de— rogatory. Over 90% of the children described special class members in terms of deviancy but only 5.U% correctly identified this deviancy as mental retardation. These results are in seeming contradiction to those of Johnson and Ferreira (1958) who reported that interviews with retardates in special classes revealed that 70% had been called derogatory names because of their special class status. Jaffe (1966) demonstrated the importance of stereo- types which become attached to the concept of mental re- tardation. In a well designed study with 2A0 high school seniors, Jaffe employed two semantic differential scales: (a) one tapping the Evaluative factor and the second, (b) measuring a combination of Activity, Potency, and an Independent-Suggestible factor. In addition, (c) an adjective check list, (d) the Social Distance Scale, (e) a vocabulary test, and (f) demographic data (including amount of contact with the retarded) were also used. Half the group responded to a retarded sketch person and half Pestonded to a non-retarded sketch person as well as to the label "mentally retarded." No significant differences were found on instruments ”a, c, and d" between the re- tarded and non—retarded sketch persons; however, the re— tarded sketch person was significantly more favorably evaluated than the label "mentally retarded" on the l7 Evaluative factor. Instrument "b" showed a significant difference between the retarded and non-retarded sketches "c" showed a difference between while only instrument those who had and those who had not had contact with re— tardates. Jaffe interpreted this finding as suggesting that contact may be related to a more cognitive or de— scriptive dimension of attitudes as opposed to actual feelings. Indices of the students' intelligence and socio- economic status were not related to any of the attitude measures but it was found that girls attributed a greater number of favorable attitudes to the retarded sketch person than did boys. Jaffe's study represents one of the better efforts to relate demographic indices and the contact factor to attitudinal measures and to move beyond the stereotypic level. .Jaffe (1967) later used a similar design to assess attitudes of three groups of high school seniors toward an identical sketch person identified as mentally retarded to one group and as ”an amputee" and "emotionally dis- turbed” to two other groups. Another group of students r’eSponded to the labels ”amputee," "mentally retarded," and "former mental patient" as well as to the sketch per- 50“ not identified as disabled. The instrument used was the semantic differential and in each case the disabled sketch person was more favorably evaluated than the wt wfw‘n; ‘ V v A H: L._ L;' r. ~ v,:‘ f ...» “4V4 5“».2“ 1'3‘ Edoxva y, “3 Q a.‘],~ f‘ t a» u h- v v ..__ E" q r4 "‘9‘...‘ ¥ ‘5 \a i , ...",_.V); -"“V._‘-_. ‘4 Mrs' J... “\§\,_ \ Wu! _— “\'J‘4a \ w. v -.A "4 \— A .H’ .. < "_ 4“" \r -' ~. 7“. .., Lr-I‘ ~ . - v,.~:‘ \~‘ ‘--I ~,-V a O .s'.~ "A ., § \, “ -. y. 4:"; ::‘r . . V . r.. A "4.,kh-Y) . , . I . . ‘ ~V‘fi.. i§5"[ ( "5 - ‘ g. II? 11‘ 18 corresponding label. Of the three terms, "mentally re— tarded" was the least favorably evaluated. Badt (1957) reported results of a study in which the attitudes of university students in education and other curricula were obtained toward exceptional children as a group as well as toward separate categories of excep— tional children. Analysis was descriptive only but, generally, the attitudes of the students seemed to be most unfavorable to mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed children. In a study purporting to deal with attitudes but actually concerned primarily with possession of factual information, Mahoney and Pangrac (1960) found a differ- ence between freshmen and senior college students on a twelve item true-false test. For the latter group there were significant correlations between test scores and number of relevant courses (dealing with mental defi— Ciency) completed and grade point average. In a similar design, Winthrop and Taylor (1957) found significant differences between men and women on tW0 items of a nine item dichotomous response (yes—no) teSt and concluded that a great deal of misinformation exiSted among the adult laymen in their sample. Polansky (1961) used the same scale (Mental Defi— cier10y Misconception Scale-MOMS) and related responses Of psychiatric technicians in a state hospital for the (D l“ ’7 1 ’( (I: O" - {/I «‘1. 1" (II ‘ (I) «h . J (Y. . -v.‘ '\ \‘ . ‘h A s x 5 . \ ‘ . v l9 retarded to several psychological variables. His hypoth- esis, that psychiatric technicians held incorrect opinions concerning mental deficiency in a proportion similar to laymen in the Winthrop and Taylor (1957) study, was not supported, e.g., technicians erroneously believed to a greater extent than laymen that ”the feebleminded are readily recognizable." It was also found that female technicians had fewer misconceptions than males and appeared to be more "tender hearted." Polansky also found some support for his hypothesis that responses to the MDMS are affected not as much by exposure to education or by factual knowledge but rather by beliefs, attitudes, and emotional biases. Anders and Dayan (1967) also studied attendants in an institution for the mentally retarded. Their purpose was to relate ethnic variables to child-rearing beliefs and attitudes measured by a 45 item questionnaire. Only the religious factor proved significant; with Catholics showing a decidedly more permissive attitude than Prot- estants although neither group had strongly permissive attitudes. Meyers, Sitkei, and Watts (1966) used a five question interview to assess attitudes among two community groups toward the educable and trainable mentally retarded and their education. The groups were (a) a random sample of a City of 80,000 near Los Angeles (N=188), and (b) a r,"" anv‘k‘ ‘ W. Lu « 4 a“ FLA ‘iv .- VL. :9 a. A» 7.9 ‘ v h L. 20 2A households where a child was enrolled in a special class for the mentally retarded. The study was summarized as follows: (1) Special class families are more willing to keep EMR and TMR children at home rather than send them away. Non—caucasians in the special. sample families are especially accepting. (2) The special sample families tend to be more SUp— portive of public school provisions for either the EMR or TMR. (3) Respondents in a religious group generally calling for orthodoxy of beliefs were less accepting than those whose identifi— cation with religion was of a liberal or casual sort. (4) The more mobile families with retarded children favor keeping the child at home rather than in an institution. (5) In general, there is less acceptance of public school responsibility for the trainable than for the educable retarded child. (6) Distressing percentages of respondents in both samples appear to misunderstand the po- tential of the EMH child, many believing they should be institutionalized, should not go to school, should not have provisions, etc. That result, together with the results generally, be— speak a still considerable public misunderstanding of the potentialities of the educable, and of the possibilities for decent community living for the trainable (p. 83). Heater (1967) used an attitude scale which measured intensity as well as positiveness to assess attitudes toward the mentally retarded of 405 clergymen of various denominations (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Christian Reformed Church of America and the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods of the Lutheran Church) and to relate these to a number of variables obtained through other instruments. It Was found that clergymen with more frequent contact witli mentally retarded persons tended to feel more strongly about their attitudes toward the mentally retarded .' .fl eg- 1 a \ ‘ p (I! 0" '3 (I) 21 regardless of whether the attitudes were favorable or unfavorable—-a finding at variance with the suggestion of Jaffe (1966) that contact seems to be related to a more cognitive as opposed to emotional dimension of attitude. Clergymen in Heater's study who placed more value on doing things for other people and being generous tended to show more favorable attitudes toward the mentally re- tarded. Sources of the variance of attitudes were found to be primarily within denominational groups for there was no evidence of differences between any of the de- nominational groups and the rural—urban areas studied in respect to attitudes. It was found, however, that high scores on a measure of conformity tended to be made by clergymen who held unfavorable attitudes toward the men— tally retarded. Heater's study represents one of the few in this area that has attempted to relate general value orientation to attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Teacher Attitudes Four studies were found which at first glance appeared pertinent to the heading of this section. On further investigation, however, two of these (Harris, 1956; Harris, 1958) were exploratory single case studies of limited value, while a third (Conner & Goldberg, 1960) consisted of a superficial analysis of a survey with less than a 50% response rate. A.‘ ~ wr‘ -..-L - V . r”. 3...}: r a: f A: «C L t . s a: h . a: CL ‘ .. . 22 Semmel (1959) in what is possibly the only substan— tive study available in this area, explored the relation- ship between the attitudes of U0 regular and 27 special education teachers and the knowledge variable. Semmel employed a 48 item questionnaire, 32 of which were factual and 16 of which measured attitudes toward retardation. Analysis of mean scores revealed that the special teachers had significantly greater knowledge concerning mental de- ficiency than did regular grade teachers; however, both groups showed an equally high positive attitude score. Semmel concluded that his research "questions the implied relationship between correct information and positive attitudes toward the retarded (p. 573).” These findings may have been confounded, however, by the fact that pro- portionally more women and three times as many teachers with ten or more years experience existed among his regu— lar teacher group than in the special educator group. It is also not clear what facets or levels of attitudes were being measured. Nevertheless, Semmel's research repre- sents the lone exploratory attempt found in this area and points the way for further efforts. Parental Attitudes Several studies have appeared which have attempted to elicit parental attitudes through the use of inter- views. Rosen (1955), for example, employed a 56 item interview schedule and content analysis to relate maternal A U ero a: W . “57.95“ VJ... V‘ ~ ~ # \- 5,". 'ta a. ‘. r-x uh *V.4v. as! \ hf V'c‘ ‘¢ 23 responses to an hypothesized five phase development se- quence of understanding and acceptance of retardation. Rosen found that, in general, the mothers' reactions conformed to the five phases: (a) awareness of the problem, (b) recognition of the problem, (c) seeking for a cause, (d) seeking for a solution, and (e) accep- tance of the problem. Gordon and Ullman (1956) reported their impressions following eight weekly group therapy sessions with parents of mongoloid children. They found a great deal of uncer- tainty among the parents despite a history of medical advice and felt that the parents overestimated the impor— tance of their children's IQ scores to the neglect of other factors that determine social adjustment. These authors described the parents as being saddled with guilt and defensiveness and noted that overprotection and in- ability to make realistic demands on the child were the most commonly expressed neurotic attitudes. Schonell and Watts (1956) interviewed 50 parents of retarded children in Brisbane, Australia. Most of the subjects were mothers and reported favorable attitudes on the part of the father, siblings, relatives, and out- siders. In eight cases, however, the attitude of the father was unfavorable, in seven cases sibling attitudes were unfavorable, and in nine cases those of relatives were unfavorable. Five parents complained of unfavorable .o 4 la .A A .u 51v r; «o . .9. e a D» h . .ru Pd 0‘ .v W L. “.I 14. D g «0" .- ‘g..- ‘n 38‘: “34"“ wa ,1 h. h. A: 2. o v n» C. C» h. a; . r . .Wu AV 4 an» s u ts. «an a v s v nu. n»h .> s» 2U attitudes and treatment of the child by people outside the family circle. Schonell and Rorke (1960) also re- ported some positive changes in attitudes toward retar— dation in the same sample after the children had been established in a day school for special training. Stoddard (1963), in perhaps the most controlled study using the interview technique to assess parental attitudes, randomly sampled and interviewed parents of retarded children and correlated elicited attitudes with several objective measures of the child's intelligence and achievement. Stoddard found no demonstrable relation- ship between parental attitudes and the achievement of their severely retarded children but qualified her con- clusion by stating that the lack of relationship was likely a function of inadequate instruments. Ehlers (196“), in an exploratory study using a focused interview format and descriptive analysis, at— tempted to relate a number of variables to parental attitudes toward services offered their retarded children by a community agency. Only the social class factor seemed important, i.e., lower class parents were more willing to avail themselves of community services than were middle class parents, which may or may not be a reflection of more positive attitudes as opposed to accessibility to private resources. at“ 4“' ax» ac Cp .1 o .l A 5 6 Y ~ .— a v ‘1 .4- 'r, - ‘5». L} ryfi’fi \J «M . x u:.* 2» .3 Tu L. {4 _ A C» a u L.- .L n n h . u. . n...“ a . Q. ‘C .34 r.. a: 3 . .».. hm h. 5V .1 av s a .. 4 L» SC .3 u-.. ‘ ‘ «my (rt in a: .1. 1 e . e . 4 Wk. .w.‘ i. L. n. 25 Levine (1966) had interviewers rate parental re— sponses regarding their male and female retarded children on a social competency scale and found significantly more agreement among the parents of a child when that child was a female. The children were all trainable retardates and the differences were attributed to the fathers' ten- dency to devalue the male retardate more than the female retardate. Mercer (1966) used information from hospital records as well as interviews to relate indirectly the attitudes toward institutionalization in families of 76 retardates released from and 76 matched retardates still hospital— ized in an institution. She found that the retardates who were reaccepted by their families (after release from an institution) were more frequently diagnosed as familial or undifferentiated and showed a non-significant tendency to have fewer physical handicaps. While the patterns of pre-institutional crises were similar for the two groups, it was the additional physical care problem which differ- entiated the groups. Meyerowitz (1967) interviewed parents of 180 young educable retardates who had been randomly assigned to regular and special classes upon entering school. It was found that the parents of children placed in special classes manifested greater awareness of retardation even though 55% of this group were judged unaware of their b.“- .. u t F. .v I~ \L.~ v‘ A t 1g ‘5‘ L y 3‘ A xiv . VV‘ a: 2V nafi W .A . i may . L .- e ‘1 u 2. . e h. . r u n u .rL H.‘ 1. a u. s ank 26 child's retardation and more than 25% of these parents whose children had received special class training for two years persisted in responding that the child was better than other children in academic skills! Parents in this group also showed a consistent, but statistically less than significant, tendency to derogate and devalue their children more than parents whose children were placed in regular classes. Olshansky and Schonfield (1965) interviewed 105 families (primarily parents) of graduates of special classes for the mentally retarded and found that one— third said they thought the graduate was normal and the remaining 30% refused to classify him either way. The authors suggest that this did not involve a denial of reality since those who were rated normal could be better classified as "culturally deprived." The ex-students perceived as normal or who were not rated were judged to be significantly better adjhsted at home, socially and vocationally, and differed on several demographic variables from those judged mentally retarded. Caldwell and Guze (1960) employed psychiatric inter- views in addition to an impressive battery of instruments, including three attitude scales, to investigate adjustment and attitudes of mothers and siblings of retardates who were institutionalized as compared to retardates living . . L» pf. . .e w. Av v... c v ‘1‘ . :u o a v. «.1 ..A T; e v as: Q. o. ‘ : A 2‘ ru 2‘ £ ‘ .r” :,. r. .7. a as n. . a. {a at. h. a. a. a. . s at n . .J m... . e .H a. :. .a at a .. .. a . e a. an n. 5.. .1 #9 A; We a. . . ~ . .r.. e . .r.. r.. 2. . . .J. r t. at .1 a. a. n. . fa a. . r... a: :x. . . Ce ~ . n u a; a. to n \ e .3». ‘4. n a s a 2* T 27 at home. Despite the relatively large number of dependent variables (eight in all), no significant differences were found between the two groups. Thurston (1959) reported on the development of a new sentence completion instrument to assess parental attitudes toward their handicapped children and later (Thurston, 1960) described results of a study involving the attitudes and emotional reactions of parents of in— stitutionalized cerebral palsied, retarded patients. Thurston's sample was large (213) but constituted only a one-third return of his original target population. He categorized the responses into eight categories and con— cluded that as a group the parents appeared hostile, suspicious, and generally uneasy and went through a long "period of mourning." Condell (1966) used a modified version of Thurston's Sentence Completion Form to investigate the attitudes of parents of mental retardates in rural Minnesota toward mental retardation and toward an agency and its staff dealing with mentally retarded children. Less than 50% of the parents contacted completed the form and the author concluded that parental attitudes were not uniform. While the parents sought professional help there was a question of its acceptance. Kenney (1967) in a well designed study, employed measures of authoritarianism and ego development (defined nu ca 4 rv ‘. "A ,‘QYS ...vL'“‘- C» V-r-a _,.. ‘k ‘ A ,~,V V-AU u. ~Y1A= N,‘ ‘ ~— 28 on a concrete—abstract thinking basis) with four groups of 10 mothers who were matched on a total of 11 variables: (a) mothers who had a retarded, adjusted child, (b) mothers who had a retarded, maladjusted child, (c) mothers with a normal IQ adjusted child, and (d) mothers with a normal IQ, maladjusted child. It was found that mothers of adjusted children, regardless of IQ, were less author— itarian in child-rearing attitudes than mothers of mal- adjusted children. The hypothesis that mothers of retar— dates would be more authoritarian than mothers of normals was not supported. Level of the mothers' ego development was related to adjustment of the child with the retarded group only. Barclay and Vaught (196A) used a rating scale with a group of mothers of non-institutionalized cerebral palsied children and found that the mothers of cerebral palsied children whose intellectual potential would clas- sify them as mentally retarded typically overestimated their children's potential for future development. Zuk (1959) has demonstrated the importance of the religious factor in parental acceptance of the retarded Child. Zuk divided 76 parents of mentally retarded chil- dren, on the basis of evaluation of case histories, into 30 accepting and A0 non-accepting parents and compared them via Chi Square according to religious preference. ZUk found a significant relationship between the mothers' “ A A..Y~ w -4...‘ "V.Q 29 religious background and her acceptance of the child. Catholics were far more accepting than non—Catholics. Of 39 Catholics, 25 were accepting, 1A were not; of 28 Protestants, 5 were accepting, 23 were not; and of 9 Jews, none were classified as accepting. It was also found that the age of the child was an important factor in acceptance-—generally, the younger the child, the more likely he was to be accepted. Peck and Stephens (1960) used a variety of observa— tional and rating techniques on a sample of 10 retarded children and their parents in an attempt to assess the effect of parental attitudes upon their children. Their findings indicated the importance of the father's attitude in the home: a .83 correlation was found between the father's acceptance or rejection of his mentally defective child and the amount of acceptance or rejection observed in the home situation. Correlation involving mothers was only .09 and was not significant. Dingman, Eyman and Windle (1963) gave the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) to several groups to compare attitudes on child—rearing practices: (a) 60 mothers of normal children, (b) A8 mothers of severely retarded children, (c) A8 mothers of mildly retarded children, (d) A5 foster mothers who cared for selected retardates, (e) 11 supervising social workers, (f) 'V .. .lnfi- ' . “a _ ... Ichrrgh‘ ..-. "J. -JAV ‘9 Y‘A‘ 71" ~U-a. .4 h 3 n: w. E L. w. n. 2. L. . .{u L. A a r.. _r.. s . r .L r. v. r“ r.. ..l :. .. . .ru Na. N Q l... 2.. is .v.. ran my» r.. v- v a v k u 3 p: a... .r.. at t h. Awu .44 ~ ‘ nu .. a .. 4 r .- . . Ali «:0 § 30 1A8 psychological technicians in a state hospital, and (g) 38 clerical and other employees in the same hospital. Analysis revealed a lack of clear differentiation between mothers of the severely retarded and the mildly retarded, with the exception that the latter were generally more protective, a finding that also characterized the foster mothers. The latter two groups generally had less education and were also of lower social status. Social workers stood out as being the most permissive while hos- pital employees gave responses similar to the social workers regardless of their position. The usefulness of the PARI, however, has been questioned by Doll and Darley (1960) in the area of speech and hearing disorders, and Harrelson (1969) has found contradictory findings in studies using this instrument in the field of psychopathology, i.e., Horowitz and Lovell (1960) and Zuckerman, Oltena and Monashkin (1958). Finally, in the last study to be cited in this area, Worchel and Worchel (1961) had a group of middle clas. parents of retarded children rate these children on 38 traits of adjustment and values. Ratings were also ob— tained from this group for their own normal children, other Children, and their conception of an ideal child. It was found that the retarded child was rated significantly less favorably on personality traits than the normal child. The distribution of the ratings on the retarded children a... v pa 2. An . C. C. L. r. :5 r4. . . nu . . . . . . r... in r . f . . . T. Q. .r.. 3-. H,» N... h .. .7. ) L. . .I. . e 4.. L. T». r. L. L. 2. h . .n . a. .x. ~ .. a t h. h. r“ 2.. n. r“ .2. n. dd 3. h . a. a. \n/ .. u L t .3 . a: Q. .. a. a. C. a. .. . an a. w l ...u a. ..-. e C «C be Eu r» a .3.-. T. . u. n. S. t. . . T. ... .. .. .. :. I: «A. Q. h. .v 1.. D. 2. a.” r“ 2. .. :. .ru :. ... . . n. _.. PC a. rd 2. :4 . \ .fi. H. an. C; :1. W. v A .«h «w. ,VL u I; Pu. u-“ 1“ s u .r .. L. w s.& .r .c v u. x \ 31 g was almost bimodal, indicating the tendency of parents to rate them on either extreme of the scale whereas the parents' ratings of children yielded the typical bell shaped curve. Parental ratings of their retagded children, 'interestingly, did not differ significantly from their ratings of children other than their own normal children. It was also found, in line with the above, that the mean discrepancy between the ratings on the retarded and ideal child was significantly higher than the mean discrepancy between the normal and ideal child. Employer Attitudes Only three systematic studies were found in the recent literature which were concerned with the attitudes of em- ployers toward the mentally retarded although several writers (DiMichael, 1953; Blatt, 1961; Allan, 1962; Salkind, 1962) have expressed the opinion that the major deterrent to successful employment of the retarded is the general negative attitude of employers. Cohen (1963) related the scores of 177 employers (in the immediate area of a training and research center on re- tardation) on a scale designed to measure attitudes toward hiring the retarded, the amount of education of the em- ployer, the amount of contact with retardates, and a check list measuring knowledge about retardation. Cohen found, Somewhat surprisingly, a significant negative relationship between attitudes and reported educational level. This was :9 01.A h J. ‘A p—a \- s . val—I‘M w. .. i Q. 0.. ...v 2 . L» Y A" ~ » 4 n. ».. Cy «n—‘n L. WA. ,.k 3: >.. .rv~ r... w . z . a. ~1‘ & i r.. .t I s ‘ s S. . n b. L. o .. nu r. ... A; C; ’ I ‘ r11... r‘u CL L» 3 . A... r. .. h ~. nx ‘ p,» a. v H 0 W » c.v( nn‘ *4 “'u 3a f‘ “v 32 in spite of a significant positive relationship found between educational level and a realistic conception of retardation. The contact variable was not significant and Cohen concluded that employer attitudes in his study were relatively independent of knowledge. Hartlage (1965) reported findings which question those of Cohen's--no relationship between the educational level of 120 employers (out of 283 contacted) and their receptivity toward hiring the retarded. Hartlage did find, however, that the size and type of business or industry was significant; with large manufacturing industries being the most receptive and service industries the least. Hartlage's findings were based on a 15 item questionnaire. Phelps (1965) cited the results of a study which com— pletely contradicts Cohen's findings while substantially agreeing with those of Hartlage. Phelps employed a 5A item weighted questionnaire containing both factual and opinion statements and compared the responses of 132 ser- vice employers (of 257 contacted). Phelps, in contrast to Cohen, found a positive relationship between educational level of personnel managers and attitude responses toward the mentally retarded. As did Hartlage, Phelps also found a positive relationship between the size of the organiza— tion and attitudes. A positive relationship was also found between attitudes and length of time of employment. Dif— ferences were also found between the types of service 7. v--¢-‘~- .. \ 33 industries, with hospital and motel personnel managers being more favorable to hiring retardates than hotel, laundry-dry cleaner, restaurant, and nursing home per- sonnel managers. Attitude Change Only a few studies have appeared in the literature which purport to be concerned with changes in attitude toward mental retardation. Four of these studies (Cleland & Chambers, 1959; Cleland & Cochrane, 1961; Kimbrell & Luckey, 196“; Sellin & Mulchahay, 1966) have employed the same basic methodology, i.e., testing of various groups (mainly high school and college students) before and after tours of institutions for the mentally retarded. In gen- eral, the results of these studies have been contradictory and inconclusive. For example, the control group in one study (Cleland & Cochrane, 1961) showed the most ”atti- tudinal shift" even though this group was not subjected to the independent variable. It may be said, in brief, that (a) attitudes and information seemed to be confused in these studies, and (b) the changes were in a positive di— rection in some cases and in a negative direction in others. Appel, Williams, and Fishell (196A) attempted to assess attitude changes of 21 mothers of retarded children two years after group counseling. Scores on a sentence COmpletion form were compared at that time with pre- COunseling scores. The parents became concerned less with afar" " -v..v v~ -. ' h v- a-.. \. 7-..‘A y. ~-¢' v- V ‘7‘.“- v C\ NJ. ”a g‘ “ 1‘ Q. T» a: : « a. s ‘ . ‘ ~ " ‘0. .l‘ . s r .. 7. « A4.‘ .V a A... 3“ their own feelings and more with the needs of their re- tarded children; however, they found it just as difficult to accept the disability as before. A control group might have helped to determine whether the reported changes were really affected as a result of counseling, as the authors contend, or were merely a function of the passage of time. Bitter (1963) in a similar but somewhat better con- trolled study, administered a four instrument battery to 16 parents before and after a parent education program involving group discussions and consisting of seven monthly sessions. Attitudes toward child—rearing and mental re— tardation in general as well as measures of the character- istics of their own trainable children and knowledge re- garding mental retardation were obtained. Parents as a group demonstrated significant changes in a positive di— rection in democratic attitudes toward child-rearing on one of the scales; however, these parents also made signi— ficantly more errors on the knowledge test after the edu- cational sessions. Some differences were found between parents who attended one or two sessions and those attending all seven on some of the concepts of the semantic differ- ential used to measure attitudes toward mental retardation—— all in a positive direction. Whether these changes were entirely a function of the group sessions or partly the I'esult of other factors remains a moot question. .s s "y .L a . u... :‘ a. .1. s g . Q. n! 1‘ ,nc 35 Summary It is of interest to note that none of the studies reviewed have employed an attitude scale constructed on the basis of the structural theory proposed by Guttman (1959). Thus, it is entirely unclear what attitudinal levels or sub—universes in the Guttman model were being measured in most, if not all, of these studies, although the impression here is that most of the scales used would likely fall at the Stereotypic level in Guttman's para- digm (see Tables 1—5 in Chapter 111). It is also likely that at least some of them were measuring mixtures of Guttman's facets} some were measuring facets not included by Guttman in his model, while some were not measuring attitudes at all but fall more in the realm of achievement tests since factual knowledge also was being assessed. Lack of control over facets being measured as well as loose definitions of attitudes will likely continue to contri- bute to results which are not comparable, inconsistent, and at times contradictory. The same can be said, of course, with regard to lack of control over subject vari— ables but this problem appears to be more easily correc- tible, providing that instrumentation is adequate and comparable. It is also of note that not one study was encountered Which attempted to relate findings cross—culturally or Cross—nationally. In fact, only three studies (Laing & 1See Chapter 3 for an extensive definition of the term "facet". W‘ ," 00"." :4,- I lit“... -IVV/ fiflrfi-u-I*;— Mil-.44» a»- .“ V. "‘ P§.. ”VIA V --./-.v.,,_‘- ~"‘ 6-». \Hh-n" ' n'.-.. ,J t. I . r: ‘-. 'M “*", ex. .~~_,. ._ ~ ‘ 1 "'44.; ._,. .' H 3; ‘ .4 "~-. . 3"‘,";;~»a ». .. “‘V""\Av 5. . “g. r§ "v ,4 . .".4v ‘ .‘ _'. *4“ o.’ v§v‘. _.. “-~o. ~ A ~'. H":.- \~V\r.. M‘u 'l‘V t._ ‘V-. ‘ ‘5.) ‘v“~~ A ~”\.,~ ' u. ~|.K“. ~. .‘x a “_\' ‘I O W‘ 4' ”w n K, \ .,’_ ,4 x. N ‘«/ 7‘ s \'¥.n _ t - ., Lv‘ \. r,. .756 v.. ‘r‘ ‘L. N! « 4»‘ 0‘“ A ._ 'P - I . U‘V‘. t.- ‘ . 36 Chazan, 1966; Schonnel & Watts, 1956; Schonnel & Rorke, 1960) were found in the American literature which were conducted in countries other than the United States. Although no clear consensus exists in the review of literature, it does indicate that numerous variables do seem to be related to attitudes toward mental retardation, i.e., sex, education, social class, religion, occupation, amount of knowledge, general value orientation, and con- tact. Few of the studies, however, attempted to control systematically more than one or two of these variables or to relate verbal attitudes to actual behavior. It seems clear that research is needed which attempts to control systematically these variables across various groups and cultures if fruitful and generalizable findings are to ensue. The research on attitudes toward mental retardation using a facet theory derived instrument (Jordan, 1967 & 1969; Jordan, Vurdelja, and Prazic, 1969) is reviewed in Chapter IV since it is also related directly to instrument— ation procedures. «A‘ . .. rk. . r“ .u 1» T. ... L. h. 1. .L. a: nu Io m . :. HA r.. u a . A 4 Lu ; v D‘u DC I.» ha ”In h. .74 M. s 4 V” .lu ‘ ‘ hfi FL« ,3: a v .C s s L; .6 .mu 2‘ . u a: «e I» ”A L. .7. .4 a. w“. ..s : « P. 3. T. r” 1. :. n. . . L. .+. .1u h. to a . n: A v 0 . A: .. s u r: . . a . v.. 2 .4 a; a» fv 3. . A a: . e L. .: afl‘ n]: ...v a: r u CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES ABS-MR Scale (Criterion) The construction of the ABS-WR Scale (Appendix B) was guided by a facet design which makes it possible to construct items by a systematic a priori design instead of using the method of intuition or judges. Guttman's facet theory (1959, 1961) specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be sub— structured into components which are systematically re- lated according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. The substructuring of an attitude universe into profiles or elements facilitates a sampling of items within each of the derived profiles, and also enables the prediction of relationships between various profiles of the attitude universe. This should also provide a set of clearly defined profiles for cross- national, cross-cultural, and/or sub-cultural comparisons. In a reanalysis of research by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957), Guttman (1959) proposed that in respect to intergroup behavior there are three necessary facets Which may be combined according to definite procedures to determine the element composition of eight important 37 l H rV BK. A. ~ )‘A .— \— Q. .rL m1 h « u» x 511.4 x~ . a .N V r H n; s. v v .v, N 38 sub—universes or levels of the attitude universe. Table 1 presents these facets. TABLE l.——Basic facets used to determine component structure of an attitude universe. (A) (B) (C) Subject's Referent Referent's Behavior Intergroup Behavior b1 subject's al belief group (others) cl comparative b9 subject a2 overt action L himself (self) c2 interactive One element from each and every facet must be repre- sented in any given statement, and these statements can be grouped into profiles of the attitude universe by multi— plication of the facets A x B x C, yielding a 2 x 2 x 2 combination of elements or eight semantic profiles in all, i.e., (1) al b1 01’ l 02, . . . (8) a2 b2 c2. It can be seen that profiles 1 and 2 have two elements in (2) al b common (a b1) and one different (c and 02), whereas pro— 1 1 files 1 and 8 have no elements in common. Using the Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) research, Guttman was able to facetize the semantic structure of their four attitude levels as shown in Table 2. The model in Table 2 depicts attitudinal subuniverses from a sterotypic level to personal interaction. A common meaning for the orderings was suggested by Guttman, i.e., r!— ._ 7. up n. v. IL ... h- La .m. L» 3. .x. ..on. «w. W. YA. xxx . .. r .v . _ 03+ s y Q~ Yu “a“ «.61; 'vv neg H; c .4 so i. rm A. c 1c SC 1... f c A: A 4 wk. . _ «p fi\.w .\.u. a». .vtv . . Ly Av s v .rwo i: ,5 n. ,-u T. be as A» .h r“ e . ., a L. .r.. a; .1 m A ll. . r. 1.x q H . a w L. s 4 r... 5 .v .1. is 39 TABLE 2.——Pacet profiles of attitude subuniverses. Subuniverse Profile 1 Stereotype 81111 2 Norm al bl c2 3 Hypothetical Interaction al b2 c2 A Personal Interaction a2 b2 c2 they showed in each case a progression from a weak to a strong form of behavior of the subject toward the atti— tude object. That is, the more subscript "2" elements a set contains, the greater the strength of the attitude. Facet analysis of the semantic structure provides a social-psychological-theoretical basis for predicting the structure of the empirical intercorrelation matrix of the above four levels. One cannot propose to predict the exact size of each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of the semantics of universe ABC, but we do pro— pose to predict a pattern or structure for the relative sizes of the statistical coefficients from purely semantic considerations (Guttman, 1959, p. 32“). This prediction was stated by Guttman as the Con— tiguity Hypothesis which states: Subuniverses closer to each other in the semantic scale of their definitions Will also be closer statistically. In other words, the intercorrelations should reveal a simplex ordering so that the maximum predictability of each level is attainable Q» A; A. L Q» r” . L .L a“ w“ «WJ uxv QC 5 v T~ A 7.1. 1.4» r». l U I V 0 : i .1. a. O . u. ‘ iv. . .,.v of . II n. uv .W 4 r4” 4. q r .. .yv r N ha N v rnu ang 3 \- ¢ n“ I s L. s u L; .N 1% Q d {l A0 from its immediate neighbor or neighbors alone. This predicted relationship has been obtained for the ABS-MR scale (see Table 6) as well as by Foa (1958, 1963) and Guttman (1961). Jordan (1968) has suggested that the facets pro- posed by Guttman need to be expanded. A more inclusive set of facets and their elements are stated in Table 3. Tables A and 5 specify the semantic structure of the facets differentiating the six attitude subuniverses, and, finally, Figure 1 depicts the relationships between Conjoint and Disjoint struction or between scale level and item content. The six level structure or Conjoint dimension was determined by Tables 3-5 whereas the item content or Dis- joint dimension was structured by Figure l. ABS—MR Test Development Data1 From a "theory of content" dictated by Figure l, generalized into Figure 2, and structured into six levels or subscales by Table 3, 20 items were constructed for each of the six levels for a total of 120 items. A mea— sure of intensity was also constructed for each of the items; the attitude scale thus comprised 2A0 items. Sixty additional items of demographic, contact and related data, Value orientation, and knowledge about mental retardation ¥ 1Much of the material in this section is taken from Jordan, 1969; with permission. Al .Ast .d .mmmH .moccHNV pcoamssmmoe psHomcoo csz oomswcoo ms op pox .rmmmH .cmppomv szsoocmpHseHm mpoowm o>Hw HHm mmoLom :wHQ ow 30H Eosm m oHQwB mo mpoomm o>Hd one no meow posmpco ego mm eochop mHHmsoHpmpodo mH coHposspm chohcooH m m m m m HmcoHpmpodo o coHpomsoch U mHom o QoHpom o mHom m H J H H H H oHHopExm m comHsdeoo U mpogpo o moHHoe o msosoo m LOH>m£om LoH>mzom m.pouo< dsosmcoch LoH>mLom Mo chEoQ m.s0po< p0po< pcopmmom ucosomom 3.: EV A8 :3 2: .mwso>Hcs oUSqupw cm mo coHposspm Hchohcoo ocHEmeoU op poms mpmomm onmmlu.m mqm VN (a x» . 41:..— .«sha.u.._. « U3 . WLmDEQE H®>®H .mpcoEoumum acouwchoo pzo pchCSUoL uo ppmd mam monocpcoLMQ CH mULoz wsoHLm> no ndencoHumHmL mpmoHUcH .: mHome mom .mHmon mzlmn< we» CH Umm: :oHumpJEmexm monozucoLMQ CH mmEm: oumCLmuH< coHuom Hmcomsoamm ameHmcoHmemNo oomsopsa o .._4 A p U ml Hl V m U o o m runsmoe ”scentsi** **sHHmOHHosssu sousmsss H Asom Hv m H H m H m Lowsmres ands: Hmsunq mnws;;HosL2H; ponsoocm caused Haom nsosomv a H o m o :onom Hsoaum:pzamg Hmcousemxx *ququHHosEmfl nessvpcw L o>mHva M aHHduHHooinw pom usugpm Hsom wzr:sflv r uHHuu-ngfimn newness“ a o>iHHoo nsvgsfl . o L mzomow.Hmcs Lug Ussuwaumndsonm SL0: Hmptwoouax u:oMun ososw UwcwHuumuaHHmcomLod a \. wHHdgHHosE>u osmmuga H vsuHHsm wsmsp: u womsopzw uss:om vsoHva wzocoo A *meHeaHHooir mHHmuwHosEmm QLMnEoo usegpw m>oHHom M Assumpn dsosm UmcmHmnm dzocmfi odmpoesopw HmpmHoouxx I I ) xmeHmstoMEmm osmdaoc nsospo msoHva nsogpm moEm: m>HodHLomoa kucmEmosuw HmcoHoHcmeQ msfleosm poems Hm>mq HmcoHpHcHde Ucm .moHHuoLd noose .wHo>mH neoHompzesod s>Hm3u Low nucmewumUn nucoHommHHmoLv> mUsppru do Empmmm Hm>oanHm poomgum>Hmun.m mqmuwHGC...-.Ltc ..< Hl—LCI :< EGLL luCUEunJfiTFLCE :i. 22:... 7.... 1...: n < CCu .:....c.tL CHILI—CE _.( OLI C£I\£d«3 IIOILOL :SuulfiLluOL OLO>II ~< .u . wifllluHOfifldr-IEEUI A<. I m... ~HAV nwduh niv.~ ;H.AJ Eqfinzd u...F~/\ - ~.~.s».~....- Req~ a .....~ C«_~.._C;..,..~t f» \ L287 3% . .15... .s . t 63...»! £2 Cia¢:.—.KHIE x.— _l~c..n ..> ‘ 0.2a ~00k LO O>t—~€D * Cu Mint..:;:! EITLIuOL A-l.:‘.E ~> \ L..c\i «dag mloJ-ljflqm A) akx NJ i.” d.1...3A1V. N‘- nWh by“ fixwd .N h \u \h cv.~ ~.\..I.\ h ..\ z < . wJMUUerJHUTN \ra.‘ 4. 1.. \u .Hmo -~Jfiduyduu mufififiwfsuwxii u-.-~ .«XNH :nv L114 head .A «can sacs «papa unsung“: couuaozvm do omoHHoo cavuon .m anon .Uocuuuou aHHaucoa on» cud: xuox Laos» ca moaned scans on» vouconounou opooau coon» can» oounua upuauoHozoaan onus» on noesnna on cue HH cwsopnu acoucoo one .hoaH .uCHLaw mauaopo>ac= ouuum cawasudz pa uncHEom oumnvasm a ca 090: on: can couucuou aHHaucoE on» :ua; aHHLaEHLQ anaxnox one: or) uuuawOHonoznn Hoonon mcHoHuoaLa mucosa nu“: ceauanonooo :« U0>Ho>o one: mucosa one H . uuouoo no «havoc on ’nsuduu Heaven sq voudzaoa can: no no>HuacLopHa m2~ unococonn owcunu m: . caduaosoo m4. ocax mo w ucoezofico m2 auauodeHop N: oEoocH wq vasoEd Ho ucsoea Hz. ousuoanun osHa> a: one HA mucuouu mquoncx ocw uoapcoo Head 0Hono a anHoom canaupmoan Hov fizz sz qu cocuauon aaHaucuE cunxou noosuauuc onus» as young non. caspaz xcuu huapoaun sud: oocoHa> oHnauo>uucs ma . 30H mm“ Hapusoc mu ”swag Hx canauo>au Ha NuHuoHpm oocoHa> Axv Any van Hauouuu mo oceanoao>ov Henceuuc an W van ouuuo :0 V mau>¢z uoH>anup HcaoOn MH ho Hue» on» canto» uo onoauna on» you noouaon vac HaooH no . ucoeaoHu>oU Hacoaucoo> NH ucoEooca>Ua mx ~ Hmucouan mo ucoEooca>ou sac. HH noduoououa H: uHon Ho Mflflmu omompam LcaHmch AHV Axe Hos Huoavos no Acouaouonv vouuuuonnc: hm codes». on HaunuH:o\uo«00n om oouHHaaooa mg «each» Handcuunon mm uoauaooauca am Uouco>onn an new counsHa>o nonsao Hauacowcoo am Auao an «tango mm~_ can» «to: mm oouafioau ma sauna“ Hanna mm quELoc wm nu o£¢u Nu no»0Han «a on UHsozn mo HaucosaoHo>oU mm uHoo Hm ' can» nova Hm oouooaoo Ho ohm Ho Heap-couv auouuuonon Hm ”coho o o>Huauu Boo ucoEuaoua 0>Hucu¢ Eco unusuaoua coauasHa> nonaao “my Any Any Hos “my uovuauou mHauucoauco: ~< coauufian-ndo duodnscn u< coped» m» quHnoua auuHaconuoa m< uaooqocupo m» Eon“ nucoEuoanuaHaE Huaoo- a< uaov a» couuauuauou oflfie m< ccflfln my guess as noduavuuuon ouauovoa ~< and on:\:»«: accouon couoannHaa aHHQHOOn m» van» H00» 90 o>odHon o» mcnvnooou wx H noduaouauou opo>ou H< uovhuuou aflflaucos a» uHonmE Hx nouuuauouonuuso vacuum-m mmudmmm A.L “Wu «I‘M4:~.vwfl. ,u-hu W . .‘u #2.ng \ .. u.» n ~ . .,‘.‘.~..~..~.,\L;._. A.‘» H. 3.5 :1. Q .N s -~..s.-.\u.. Ct. “5 Use 82 .2 .mmum =28an 38m Baa you 3352: 33 583:0 2: 58.835 25m 5322 568—. .m 5:. .003de 05 you flog—Smugam on .38 96.3 25.8 .3 "2038.832 6:283 653 .8?" an :25 98..» 338 .3 camped >5; 3: m2 Seamsmwfiuovuo of. .mconcoq :UeHdHoodw: Uhmzop oocon> .’o>Humm.uc .o>pr. 0d Hx , ma..¢< HAHHHHanHU .m.vv pHaLp Hesse: AamoHUcm; erLa UengHLaoa -333035 «50.280 .8. ma :ozusbm E835 .3“ venngoU :25 «o» .532: .m .EonE .8 23:8 «U333 30ch L... 559:: Em: mucous; .33. to 832:6 28.88 82% ..m.. @525 ..<.. 28.me \ .u.mv H:H a v..w -.:...,.%..n)4u .qfi ’ .Hfimfi*xw :C rH . ‘0» possum: szB H: .mmfl .s 5.32 do 3:355 9:39: :o comm} M ~<~ ~ d ’ mpHQuoT W£~ so on :mom~ rc‘ H mocon> Ho>c4 adage uncoopd co sasHm>_ Axv AUV sz acoHom Ho.~ dso;z anntcourn we :HHLUL Usa xmn .d :oHpmHnH.:H ; Hflwvdv cu Ucodues s .ssaefimz .zsdmc; is at“: Hmv :oHpanoo acmcaoHdEo ed de2 aHHmwoedu . Loch sonny 30H mm cofipnosve :u CH ozonsod zuws neomcsucH r1 ILOQEH ho Ho>eH Esfises rm :CH>Hop:H :oproLoo w; :sofiuw can: :mH; Hm mcoHpchc dsosu ALnEHs; as Hgaszvcsdeoo anmLa HmconLed He mops :00 Hr LoH>mzo; cocmpsomEH ncoHpsspHm eng asosmpoucH u.L0pc< H3 H5 T: mmOU . aHHmcoHu dem mo, eHmm rm Impede mm .oum .3mn .osmmz LOuom :oHuom do ’ .ose .3e< .opum: ‘ acmgmuog unmso UmHgmmHU go mucopma on» me>o mo LOH> zoo UmHgdnHU do nucwsma 0p UHsoz UmHammHchoc umcu pewsoeop teHomeUncoc neuzLHLups AHHMO oH0g3 m mm .don Ucm emHHm; H; 2;» mHo;3 m as .dOd Hxv poomnzu IHHoneam Hm mcmguo Ho nsozuo Hm LOH>mcom m.pouo< uo :Hmcoc Louo< L0H>m2em suspect: szssodma 3: HE A“: 3; .mcomsmm emacfiomdm cameos mmezpfisse so cosponssm pesosmam mpCHOUQoo Ho mflthmQ< comm map Mom mosmpsmm mCUQQmE oH Ho>mH .momH mo. pm :mppon EOLH see so .\ eo msz> HmoHpHLon U eo msz> HmoHpHLor _ . _ .mo. Hm>mH mo. pm M Ho msz> HechHnom .coHuQHLommU oHaemm pom axe» mom m .omcHHLmUc: ohm mHmeo>mm H n» n UH :r m "d r—I m (\J r-i wHe>o4 II as Mm mm on me x II mH mm mm ;H sH m. I mm HH ms 30 Ho 0 II we MH on mm J II mH mm mm mm J II mm 5H NH NH m II Hm mm ms m II Hm mH mm m II as m mH 3 II as mu m II as Hm H“ II sm mH m NH.s II mm a m.e II am a s.s II 3: m xHLHmy II P Hubusu II n. mH Ho :pmopo: II 1. HH H II .. HH m II Hu ms m I pH.s II .m w a.. II .2 ..n II 3: n how xHmee some mCHmem stus II H .HL.r: II H xHmes II H :n.. n J» u,;; ..m. u . a 1. s:.. n J? H-3L II .. HH mm as H; a II mm as s. nw «H a I -. HH as mm H: s eoHso< Hmeomsmm II :u u: ”H cm M II Hr 2H SJ wH H II mm fiH wH NH 9 wCHmem HMCOmem II w» NH wH 1 II .m u. .m 4 II Ir Hy NM : :OHpod .pmzpoamr Hmcompmm II s. CH H II .m Hm . II «M mm m :pomsHm>m Hmboz Hmcombmm ..s II my a m.m II nu . H.u II 2: m Ehoz HmpoHoom e.g.m: II H Hwb.ms II H xHLHss II H mazpopopm HmpoHoom see. u IH Hsesuweo mew. u .H HvsHmH; s... u .: HseHmHHs o a Ipl m u H e ; s H m H m s- s m a H mchrvu mmIIasu :mHHsmu wmsIIanH.1 mmHoamm mm. Ioom am egos m>HpQHhome v, mad pcm muHHmm .osm as mg» ‘3 onQEHm mo mHmsHmceIIsm mam®IH s H m m H m s m m H o m e m m H aHm>mH so om Os mm mm o co om o. oo on 0 II m as am H so u II as om s: mm m II as am as oo a II as an sm so m II so so om 3 II a om as 3 II m H: mm s :emsmeeo: mum mmOHssms II as om m II as am m II DH mm m o.s II as m :.s II a a n.s II Hm m thsme II H xHesws II H «Hess. II H mom. n .8 who; see. u a was; ”as. n J. ..a; o m t om mm mm mm pm “w as be as Ih mm .. II n: mm H» mm em c II om mm s om m II om mm OH as m II co ms mm mH m II s elm B m II 8 mm 8 H... II S K. E m II om bb .t_ II om mm m II am om T zomHoEmLom: ohm mmoHLumE m.s II as m. m.s II co "m H.s II mm M xHLumE II. xHprE II WI XHLpdC II D. ems. n ma HmchHgo Hem. I ma HmchHeo as. u m» HschHso moochmHeHQ Hmswm neocoboewHQ Hmzdm noosehoumHQ Hmswozs Esme o>HpaHLomeQ Hmsomcz new Hmscm .mcoHpmHmLLoo cpHs mooHLumE :pmponpo HHpommpma: no awesome mmocvpoHHHo H mcoHpmHmHLoo HmoHueLoogp mo wmeHMC¢II. m mHm¢e m ...H “I... Irv ' . D— ‘ II I ‘ a h. L 4 T. 2‘ : . 7. Ir. Chapter IV under Q2 Analysis. The Q2 statistic, briefly explained, is able to: (a) reorder the level members of each matrix so as to generate the best empirically pos— sible simplex approximation; (b) calculate Q2 for the hypothesized ordering and for the empirically best or— dering of each matrix; and (c) based on ”a" and ”b," determine whether or not the best order for the empirical data of the simplex was the order set forth in the hypothesis. The Q2 values for the ED 200 sample (Table 6, matrix 6.l & 6.2) were the same (.9M6) for the hypothe— sized order and the best order; i.e., the best order for the empirical data of the simplex was the order set forth in the six-level theory of Table U. The g2 values for the Belize sample (Table 6, matrix 6.5 & 6.6) were: (a) hypothesized order: .858; and (b) best order: .859. Examination of Table 6 indi— cates levels 5 and 6 are reversed in the ”best" order of the Belize data but that the increase in the Q2 value was minimal. The Q2 values for the SER sample (Table 6, matrix 6.9 & 6.10) were the same (.97“) for the hypothesized and the best order; as it was for the ED 200 sample. While there presently is no significance test avail- able for the values of the Q2 test, examination of Tables 6 and 7 gives some cues to the relationships between the u—~ «xx 5C \.., 55 absolute value of 02 and: (a) the "ordering" within the simplex matrix, (b) the equal-or—unequal nature of the differences between the correlations, and (c) the abso- lute size of the correlations. As indicated in Table 7 (matrix 7.“) the highest 2 . . . . _ Q value is for an ordered matrix containing both egual— interval and larg st correlation values. Table 6 con- tains the g2 values for the three test development samples for the ABS—MB. The ED 200 sample contains four rever— . f . “2 . . . sals (matrix 6.1) and the g is the same for the obtained ’) f. simplex and a "best" one obtained by the In procedure (matrix 6.1 & 6.2). If the correlations in matrix 6.1 H, merely" are changed enough to make the matrix an "ordered" 2 r - - one the Q value of .996 in matrix 6.2 increases to .977 in matrix 6.3. While there is presently no test of the statistical significance of this increase of .031 it does indicate some relationship between "order" and the size 2 . . . of the Q value. Table 6 contains Similar analyses of the Belize and SEE test development samples. ’3 Table 6 also contains the Q4 value for a matrix with six reversals of order for data of unequal intervals. In Hamersma's (1969) study "six-reversals” were accepted as the maximum possible for a 6 x 6 data matrix to contain and still be accepted as "approximating" a simplex. By the "six-reversal" criteria a Q2 value of .60 would appear minimal and preferably a value of .70 for a 6 x 6 matrix to be acceptable as a simplex. L. A4 a,» .7. .Nu fuq L. VI. Vb. rna « s These simplex results of Table 6 lend support to an hypothesis of a cross—cultural and invariate structure between the scale levels of the ABS—MR. The data also suggest that age and experience bring congruence between what one expects of others and one's self; i.e., the dif— ference between levels 3 and U as opposed to that between levels 2 and 3 was much greater for the regular education students than for the graduate students. The latter are older and have had more experience than the former. Both, however, saw themselves as doing what was ”right” more than they saw others doing so. The difference between levels 3 and U as opposed to levels 2 and 3 was less in Belize although in the same direction. The entire simplex in Belize is more restricted and homogeneous; which is what is expected in underdevel— Oped societies since they are less differentiated. It should also be noted that level 3, the Personal Moral Evaluation level, was involved in many of the instances in which the simplex ordering was not maintained. Appar— ently the implications of level 3 are more subtle and difficult to differentiate. Level 3 (Table 5) also has more permutations or level members, and thus finer grada— tions of meaning, which may make it difficult for respon- dents to differentiate between the levels. D» II r . .. . IL v; at AG u. . t t O .rIu «D 3 L u my 3 e 3 .1 Tu t 3 m .1. .. . n . e a» . . «.c e 3 n. .1... Dy «0 _. A G u ”Vb n o. A t v I‘ s p A 71” I I\ «I... a: .u s I. A ... .1 LI» ~ ... a: I. L 57 Predictor Variables Demographic Variables The instrument labeled Personal Questionnaire: MR (Appendix B) was designed to operationalize several vari- ables suggested by the review of the literature to be de- terminants of attitudes toward mentally retarded persons (see Tables 2-9, Appendix A). Many of the items in this questionnaire were used in the international study of attitudes toward physically disabled persons conducted by Jordan (1968), and all revisions were made by him. A total of seven demographic items were included in the questionnaire which, from a theoretical standpoint, might correlate with, or predict, the criterion. These items are: sex, item 81; age, item 82; amount of educa- tion, item 87; work experience in education, item 83; marital status, item 8“; religious preference, item 85; and perceived importance of and adherence to religion, items 86 and 96. Change Orientation This set of six questions was adapted by Felty (1965) from Programa Inter-americano de Informacion Popular in San Jose, Costa Rica to measure attitudes toward change in the.following areas: self change, items 88 and 97; child rearing practices, item 89; birth control, item 90; automation, item 91; and political leadership change, item 92. EducatiOI ItI 58 Educational Aid and Planning Items were included in the questionnaire to measure attitudes regarding local government aid to education (item 93), federal aid to education (item 9“), as well as who should have responsibility for educational plan- ning (item 95). Contact with Handicapped Persons Questions 98 through 106 were designed to opera— tionalize variables involved in personal contact between the respondents and handicapped persons. The items in— cluded are conceptually distinct. Item 98 reports the category of handicap with which the respondent has had the_most experience; item 99 reports the kind of relation— ship experienced; item 100, the frequency of contact; item 101, the ease with which the contact might have been avoided; items 102 and 103, the extent to which the re— spondent gained materially by the contact, while item 104 indicates the availability of alternatives to working with the handicapped. Items 105 and 106 were designed to measure respectively (a) the amount of contact, and (b) the amount of enjoyment experienced in the contact with mentally retarded persons only. Efficacy Attitude items 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, and 123, which appear in the questionnaire under the ..C . a a . .I. v.” ,I I : a n; a; u «I1 w” rd .w . 1 1 3.. C» . v . o . . . ,U . .II o. . .-¢-«, I 1" -vt-‘ldv‘ .‘ d ry‘n C1“; nu- \ ‘ 1 MIA. vary A ’- ..« . Y‘I" Uhv‘o a x .. 4 ,1 In TU 17; .Ic “I... r . L :1 w” -I/ L . a 5c . _ .1 , r v 4/ .l. 59 I heading "Life Situations' (Appendix B), were adapted by Jordan from a fully evolved Guttman Scale reported by Wolf (1967). Measures of intensity or answer "certainty," items 108, 110, 112, 11a, 116, 118, 120, 122, and 12a, were added to the original items evolved by Wolf. In addition, four levels of intensity of agreement—disagreement H H with the items replace the original agree-disagree dichotomy used by Wolf. This scalelwas designed to measure attitudes toward man and his environment and attempts to determine the re— spondent's view of this relationship. The coninuum underlying this scalelranged from a view that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some measure of ad- justment to forces outside of himself, to a view that man could gain complete mastery of his phy- sical and social environment and use it for his own purpose (Wolf, 1967, p. 113). This variable has been termed "Efficacy" by Jordan (1969) since it purports to measure attitudes toward man's effectiveness in the face of his natural environment. Knowledge about Mental Retardation A sixteen item knowledge scale on mental retarda— tion, items 125 through lUO, was adapted by Jordan from Haring, Stern, and Cruickshank (1958). These 16 items were selected because they were specifically designed to measure the amount of factual knowledge possessed by the respondent regarding various aspects of mental retardation. 1, . tee Code Book for scoring procedures for all scales. Scores are obtained by summing item alternative numbers. . I ‘ I )4 n. . A "I ., n a v , . . . y c H .. o h .. I- a. . .. : a I... . a r.. ‘C n.4,» afiv r!“ . ,o 1 ,L ”IL hfia 1. .fiu 1. . AV 0. « W. s; ”A ,v .. x?» “A a» I; rv r14 2» o.‘ xv r—v 3. . . . a v w. ;Iu W. V“ .54 w“. .VM fiIv \~. ‘IA TU r” ..1 T. v .. . .. . A: L; 1c 72 ... A3 h . Cc S. , Ird n. I Q. n . . I» «.3 C. n . a a a. . l w J Le n . A u .r .. .l. H.“ s I. no}. _. .z 1. . .r c r: I. a A .4 a: . C Tu A\ V n .7 s .4 NJ 60 Since the items were extracted from the larger General Information Inventogy (Haring, et a1, 1958) the 16 items were subsequently submitted to item analysis. As stated in the item analysis program (Office of Evaluation Services-—Michigan State University, 1965) most test constructors desire items with indices of difficulty from 20 to 80, with an average index of difficulty from 50 to 60. By this criterion the MR knowledge scale is fairly adequate with the average level of difficulty being 40 for the graduate students and 50 for the under— graduates. Examination of Table 8 indicates that seven of the items (126, 127, 128, 130, 13A, 139, and 1&0) have an index of difficulty between A2 and 71 and that these seven items also discriminate fairly well between the upper and lower 27% of the total group in terms of total score. These seven items were used as the Mental Retardation Knowledge §g§1g in this study. In Table 8 the Difficulty Index refers to the pro— portion of the total group who got the item wrong while the Discrimination Index indicates the difference between the proportion of the upper 27% who got the item right and the proportion of the lower 27% who got the item right. Reliability of the ABS—MR The reliability of the ABS-MR was assessed by the Hoyt analysis of variance technique. The technique is described by Hoyt: ng‘xvvfi 12121113 I kAJ f 1 0 LA.) r\ ) k 4 fix) ‘4 (7\ ' J k x) (D ’1 \g) 61 TABLE 8.--Item analysis of the mental retardation scale. Item Medical Information Class ED 200 Class (N = 88) (N = 633) Difficulty Discrimination Difficulty Discrimination Index Index Index Index 125 22 26 50 MM iggl A8 27 7o 27 121 49 52 43 . Al ggg 61 26 67 21 129 32 39 81 25 130 71 18 89 ‘ 20 131 U 9 11 12 132 32 43 23 30 133 32 52 HO A3 133 60 22 81 28 1352 -- -- -- -- 136 3 O 5 14 137 27 39 33 38 138 13 26 27 U9 132 u2 57 50 53 139 “8 “8 38 36 Mean 9.52 7-93 Standard Deviation 2.02 2.06 Mean Difficulty ‘ A0 50 Mean Discrimination 30 30 Kuder Richardson .31 .36 lUnderlined items constitute the MR Knowledge Scale. 2Keyed wrong, thus omitted from analysis. 62 By subtracting the 'among students' and the 'among items' sums of squares from the total sum of squares, we have left the residual sum of squares whicn is used as the basis of estimating the discrepancy be- tween the obtained variance and the true variance (1967, p. 110). Hoyt (1967) indicates the split—half method of estimating reliability may result in deflated or inflated reliability coefficients. The Hoyt formula also provides the equiva— lent to a Kuder—Richardson formula 20 estimate. The reliability coefficients for each level and the total of the ABS—MR on the three pilot study groups as well as the four groups of the present study are contained in Table 9. Validity of the ABS-MR Content Validity Tyler (1963) states that content validity consists essentially in judgment. The content of the items in the ABS—MR was based on the judgment of practicing school psychologists (see Figure 1) in the field of mental re- tardation. Their expertise increased the likelihood of representativeness in the content of the 120 items finally selected. Concurrent and Predictive Validity Concurrent and predictive validity may be inferred from the fact that the older, more experienced, and more knowledgeable group among the test development samples 63 TABLE 9.-—Hoyt reliability coefficients for the ABS—MR on seven groups. Level 1 II III IV V VI Total SERl 7a 82 6A 79 85 78 87 Ed 2682 73 83 69 79 71 67 89 Belize3 63 75 60 79 76 76 86 888“ 58 66 8A 83 9o 78 87 PMBS 82 88 57 6O 89 8o 90 BST6 2 81 72 90 91 80 92 PNR7 63 73 75 86 86 76 9o 1 MSU special education and rehabilitation students, I)ecember, 1967, N = 88. ’3 LMSU SOphomore education students, January, 1968, N = 633. 3 Belize primary teachers, January, 1968, N = 523. Mexican-American special education and rehabilita- tfiion workers, May, 1969, N = 50. 5Mexican-American parents of the mentally retarded, May, 1969, N = 50. Mexican-American regular school teachers, May, 1969, 7Mexican—American parents of the non—retarded, May, 1969, N = 82. 6A (the SER) also scored more positively toward the mentally retarded., Data were gathered for the three samples on 22 predictor variables (number 15—36, Table 10) which offer considerable "correlational" evidence (Table 2—U in Appendix A) of the validity of the ABS—MR content in that groups with known characteristics responded as expected. Construct Validity Tyler (1963) suggests that one method of construct validation is correlating items with total scores. The high item to total correlation, presented in Table A.1l in Appendix A, for all scales and groups, as opposed to the low inter—item correlations for each scale for all groups, give support to the construct validity of the ABS-MR. Tables 6 and 7 also reflect the construct validity of the ABS—MR since the postulated semantic structure and the obtained statistical structure (i.e., the simplex) essentially agree. Both the reliability and validity information is strong enough to warrant the use of the ABS—MR for re— Search purposes. CHAPTER IV DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The purpose of the comprehensive international study1 is to investigate the attitudes of designated groups in different nations toward the mentally retarded. Accord- ingly, nations were chosen at varying levels of moderniza— tion, economic development, and cultural orientation. The design of the international study, therefore, calls for samples from the same occupational or interest groups in different nations. Analysis procedures were chosen which permitted testing the relationships specified in the hypotheses. Sample The present study used a sample from the Mexican- American population in Texas composed of the following four groups: (a) 50 Parents of Mentally Retarded Children (b) 50 Special Education and Rehabilitation Workers (0) 50 Regular School Teachers (d) 82 Parents of the Nonretarded Selection of these four groups, whose attitudes were important in respect to the education, employment, and general well being of the mentally retarded, were chosen 1See Chapter 1. 65 66 to make this study comparable to others in the compre- hensive international study. The border area of Texas from which the sample was drawn has a high concentration of Mexican-Americans. Persons familiar with the several border areas volun- teered to help in obtaining the sample from each of the four groups cited above. Random sampling was not used because of tne difficulty in obtaining cooperation from members of the four groups, especially the parents of the retarded. Representativeness was approached by sam- pling different sections of the community in the case of the parents of the mentally retarded (PMR) and parents of the non—retarded (PNR) groups; and sampling several different schools in the case of the special education— rehabilitation personnel (SER), and the regular teachers (RST). In terms of representativeness, the areas sampled have a high proportion of Mexican—Americans, 88% of some areas being pOpulated by persons with Spanish surnames. Hypotheses of the Study The variables in this study were intercorrelated (see Tables 5-9, Appendix A) to enable examination of re- lationships for both content and intensity scores of the criterion (ABS—MR) across each level (including total scores) with 29 independent variables. This facilitated testing of the following hypotheses. 67 RelatinggAttitudes and Values _:i.—-Persons who score high in efficacy will score high in positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded on each of the six levels as well as the total score on the ABS—MR. Relating Attitudes and Knowledge h:g.--Persons who score high in knowledge about men- tal retardation will score high in positive attitudes to- ward the mentally retarded on each of the six levels as well as the total score on the ABS-MR. Relating Attitudes and Contact H-3.——The more frequent the contact with mentally retarded persons the higher will be the intensity scores on each of the levels of the ABS—MR. H-A.--The more freguent the contact with other dis— ability groups the higher will be the scores on the inten- sity statements on each of the levels of the ABS-MR. H—5.—-High frequency of contact with mentally re— tarded persons will be associated with favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded on each of the levels of the ABS—MR ii high frequency is concurrent with (a) alterna- tive rewarding Opportunities, (b) ease of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjoyment of the contact. 68 Relating Attitudes and Religiosity H—6.--Persons who score high on stated importance of religion will score low on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables H-7.-—Amount of education will be positively re— lated to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. h:8.—-hgg will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. h;9.-—Nomen will score higher on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will men. Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation H-10.——Persons who score high on change orientation will score high on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Relating Attitudes to Qpinions on Educational Aid and Planning h:ii.--Agreement with government aid to education 'Will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. h:ig.——Agreement with centralized government plan— Ifiing of education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. 69 Relating Attitudes and Group Membership h:i3.——The research groups will assume the following order with respect to favorable attitudes toward the men— tally retarded: Teachers of the Mentally Retarded>Parents of the Mentally Retarded>Regular Teachers>Parents of the Non—Retarded. Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality H-lU.-—The ABS-MR scale levels or attitude sub— universes will form a Guttman Simplex for each of the sample groups. Analysis Procedures The Control Data Corporation Computer (CDC 3600 and 6500) at Michigan State University (MSU) was used to analyze the data, which also facilitated the data being analyzed as an integral part of the larger comprehensive study by Jordan. Table 10 contains the variable list of the entire study by IBM card and column. Efgcriptive Statistics Two Frequency Column Count programs (Clark, 196“), Ciesignated as FCC-I and FCC—II were used to compile the .frequency distributions for every item of the instruments. TPhis procedure is useful for selecting additional vari- Eibles for analysis and for gaining a clinical "feel” -for the data. 70 TABLE 10.--The ABS—MR: Basic variable list by IBM card and column. Variablel Card Column Page Item 1. Stereotype 1 36,38 alter to 7A 2-A 1,3 alter to 39 ms 2. Normative 2 36,38 alter to 711 5—7 111,143 79 Egg 3. Moral Eval. 3 36,38 alter to 7A 8-11 81,83 119 p13 U. Hypothetical A 36,38 alter to A lE-lA 121,123 159 1:8 5. Feeling 5 36,38 alter to 7b 15-17 1,3 39 2C3 6. Action 6_ 36,38 alter to 74 18—20 Al,A3 79 7. Total 1-6 same 1-6 above 2-20 same above 8. Stereotype 1 37,39 alter to 75 S—L 2,A 7A0 gj? 9. Normative_ 2 37,39 alter to 75 5-7 A2,UA 80 37410. Moral Eval. 3 37,39 alter to 75 8-11 82,8A 120 :;§11. hypothetical A 37,39 alter to 75 l2nlA 122,12U 160 :33le- Feelins 37,39 alter to 75 15-17 2,9 uo <‘Zl3. Action 6 37,3’J alter to 75 18-20 A2,AA 80 H114. Total l-t same as aicve 2—23 same TLOV’ j; 15. Efficacy——Ccnt. 7 36,38 alter to 52 28,29 107,103 123 16. Efficacy-—lnt. 7 37,3J alter to 53 28,29 108,110 12A ‘52 17. £133. ECHL’J'nJlejge 7 Ei-jT,SVi:€3,28)tj 313-32 126-126,133,131Ip139, 18. HP Amount 1—7 28 28 100 u 19. HP Avoid 1-7 29 28 101 5:, 20. HP Income :-7 31 26 103 g 21. HP Alter 1-7 32 27 108 O 22. MR Amount 1-7 33 27 105 O 23. 1.27; Enjoy 1-7 31; 27 106 I329. Age 1-7 10 21 82 9.C25. Educ. Amount 1—7 15 21 87 55.726. Religion Impcr. 1-7 19 22 86 Q 527. Religion Adher. 1-7 2A 2b 96 ‘w28. Self Change 1—7 16 22 88 e .29. Child Rearing 1-7 17 23 89 §t§30. Birtn Control 1—7 13 23 90 ma)3l. Automation 1-7 19 23 91 5232. Political Lead. 1-7 20 23 92 J 333: Rule Adher. 1—7 25 25 97 o 39. Local Aid 1—7 21 2I 93 .3 35. Federal Aid 1—7 22 2a 911 m 36. Ed. Planning 1-7 23 2A 95 37. Sex 1-7 9 2 81 .m 38. Ed. Contact Var.l—7 11 21 83 3&339- Marital Status 1—7 12 22 84 chAO. Relig.--Aff11. 1-7 13 22 85 STjul. HP Category 1-7 26 25 98 “2. HP Gain 1—7 3? 26 102 1Based on the ABS-MR 3968 edition 2Not used in correlational analysis 3K = Knowledge “V a Value 71 Correlational Statistics In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966), a great deal of data can be secured in one anal- ysis. Separate analysis can be done for the total group and for any number of sub—groups, or partitionings of the data. For each specified group, (e.g., total, male, fe— male) a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in this research were the means and standard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. Partial and multiple correlations are outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC program at MSU (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966a). One bene— fit 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 Eli 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 inter—related :rather than directly predictive of the criterion. In a Ibartial correlation solution to the problem, these re- lationships among the predictor variables are considered :in computing the correlation of each variable with the criterion, i.e., the effects of all but one variable are lield constant. 72 The use of multiple regression analysis has been recommended by Ward (1962) because it "not only reduces the dangers in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before consid- ered 'researchable' (p. 206)." The multiple correlation program yields the following statistics: the beta weights of all predictor variables, a test of significance for each beta weight, and the partial correlations between each predictor and the criterion. Analysis of Variance Statistics The UNEQI routine (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966b) was used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statistics. This program is designed to handle unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. In addition to the analysis of variance tables, the fre- quency, sums, means, standard deviations, sums of squares, and sums of squared deviations of the mean were included for each category. A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal hig was used to analyze group-sex interaction (Ruble, Paulson & Rafter, 1966). Since the samples were not equal in size or sex ratio within groups, an "adjusted mean" was computed on which to base all 3 tests. The adjusted mean equalizes or accounts for the variance in the size of the group as well as for unequal sex distribution 73 within the samples. For convenience of computer program— ming the 5 statistic was used for testing of all mean differences, even though differences between two means are usually tested by the 3 statistic. Comparisons of the E and 2 statistics have shown that results are the same for the p and 5 test procedures (Edwards, 1965). While a significant overall E leads to rejection of the statistical hypothesis, it is not known whether every mean is significantly different from every other mean when three or more means are involved. Several multiple means tests have been proposed for determining the differences between treatment means (Winer, 1962). In this study the E test for group comparisons is the usual one while the E test used to test for differences between the "adjusted means" of "pairs of groups" is equal to a two tailed 3 test while also fully accounting for the other experimental factor. This procedure for testing for significance among multiple means is approxi- mately equal to the Duncan's New Multiple Means Test (Edwards, 1960; Kramer, 1956, pp. 307-310) when more than three means are included, thus increasing the likelihood of Type I error. The procedure also does not account for non-independence among the pair—of—treatment means. The approximate significance probability of the E statistic is also included in the computer print—out. This convenient figure enables the researcher to know if 7A the h was significant without referring to a table. For example, if the number printed out was .05, the level of confidence, with appropriate degrees of freedom, would be .05 or less. The Q2 Statistic Kaiser (1962, p. 155) suggests a procedure for test- ing a simplex approximation: "for scaling the variables of a Guttman simplex . . . the procedure . . . orders the variables. A measure of the goodness of fit of the scale to the data is suggested." Kaiser's approach may be seen as performing two functions: (a) a "sorting" of virtually all possible arrangements of data so as to generate the best empiri- cally possible simplex approximation; and (b) an assign- ment of a descriptive statistic, "£2," to specified ma— trices. The index 92 is a descriptive one, with a range of 0.00 to 1.00. A computer program was developed which (a) re- ordered the level members of each matrix, by Kaiser's procedures, so as to generate the best empirically pos— sible simplex approximation; and (b) calculated Q2 for the hypothesized ordering and for the empirically best ordering of each matrix. The distribution of Q2 has not been developed,therefore,probability statements about "better” or "worse" matrix ordering can not be made. However, the hypothesis of the present study examines 75 whether the six levels of the ABS-MR form the best simplex approximation when listed level—by—level, regardless of the order of administration. At the time of the research completion, appropriate likelihood ratios for measuring goodness of fit were not available. Mukherjee (1966) suggests a method which ap- pears appropriate for matrices of equally spaced corre- lations, but neither facet theory nor the actual data sug— gest that the matrices in the present study have equally spaced entries. The next chapter will present the results of the study as they pertain to the acceptance or rejection of the research hypotheses stated in this chapter. CHAPTER V RESULTS OF THE STUDY This chapter presents a statistical analysis of the data to confirm or disconfirm the research hypotheses stated in Chapter IV. Hypotheses l, 2, 3, A, 6, 7, 8, 11, and 12 were analyzed using product—moment correla- tions. Hypotheses 5 and 10 were analyzed using multiple correlation as discussed in Chapter IV. Hypotheses 9 and 13 were analyzed using the analysis of variance tech— nique outlined in Chapter IV. The MDSTAT item analysis program and the Q2 program yielded the results to test hypothesis IA. Bplating Attitudes and Values h:i.-—Persons who score high in efficacy will score Eigh_in positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded 6H . n n n AI. mesons mmze see same 6mmze memo weapflppm mEImm< xflm on» cmozpoo mmm>mfi mocmowmflcmwm bcm w cmOHHoEOH H :OHOeHOHHOOII.- mqmqs .HH OHOOO 6H OIm meeoeeeeu mew 79 m .UOppOEo mHmEHooQH OOO as OO OO HOO .OHO OH OO OOI OO as e Hmeoe OO OH NO am He .OHO OH sH OOI OH OOI e O OO HO HO OO HO .mHm OO OOI OOI HOI OH e O HO HO OO OO mOO .mHm NH HH OO OOI H: e O OO Om OO Os mO .OHO OH OH sO OOI HO 8 O sOO Os OO sH HOO .mHm OH :O OH HO O: s O OO OO OO NO OO .OHO OO OOI NO OOI em e H OOOOHOOZO OOOEO Hssoe OZO Om. sz :Om .Omem HO>OH .OOOOOO NOZO 6cm .memm .msz .mmmm COOHHmE omomazocx new mOo>oH mUSPHUPm milmmiq XHW wflo‘ C®®39®Q mHm>®H QOCIQOHLMHCWHW USN HmCOHpMH®LL00|I.NH memOH OOOOO HOOOO OOO OOO OzO OOO .ONOO OEIOOO .OOOOOO Nmze OOO .Nemm .NezO .Nemm ONOHOOEO pompcoo x2 mo pczoem new mam>oa zuflmcmpcfl oozuflpum szmm< xflm map awesome wfim>oa cosmoOmchOm pom ICOOmeE pom H meeHOeHOeNOOII.OH OHOOe 82 .HH maomB CO mIm moo0£ooom 66mm .pmppOEo mHmEOooQH HO OO OO NN NN .OHO OOI OOI OOI OH OHI e Hmeoe OH NH OO OO HH .OHO OH OH OOI ON NN N O OO OO NO OH O: .OHO OO OO NOI ON HHI s O OO NN NO OO NN .OHO OOI OHI OO OOI OHI N O NH OO NO ON OH .OHO OOI NHI OOI OO OHI e O OO ON OO HN OO .OHO OOI OHI OO OH NOI e N HH N: OO ON NO .OHO OHI OOI OHI OOI ONI N H NOOOZOO me so OZOOza HO>6H mson HOOOO OOO OOO OOO OOO .ONOO OzIOOO .OOOONO NOZO OOO .Nemm .NOEO .Nmmm cmeHeeee ICOOOxmz How pompcoo mm go pczoem pew mao>oa hpflmcopcfi OOOOHOOO szmma xHO OOO geezeee mHeseH eeeNeHOHeOHm Oem OOHONHOeHOOII.eH OHOOO H 83 H-5.—-High frequency of contact with mentally re- tarded persons will be associated with favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded on each of the levels of the ABS-MR i: high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) ease of avoidance of the con— tact, and (c) enjoyment of the contact. The hypothesis for contact and favorableness of at— titudes toward the mentally retarded was supported in that the multiple correlation coefficient for the total groups, comparing hii contact variables (see variable list, Table 10) with the total ABS-MR (Table 15), indicated a high positive relationship. Comparing all contact variables with specific ABS—MR levels for the total groups (Table 15) reveals the personal feeling and action levels of the attitude continuum as being most related to contact. The partial correlation coefficients for the contact variables, using the total group for comparison (Table 15) denotes a significant negative correlation between the ABS-MR personal action level and frequency of contact with the mentally retarded. The HP avoidance and MR enjoyment variables were positively correlated (p<0005 and p<01 respectively) with the ABS—MR personal action level; how- ever, the alternative rewarding opportunities variable was not concurrent as required by H-5. Although the relation- ships did not approach significance (Table 15), all but one ABS-MR level by MR amount comparisons resulted in negative correlations. “A.— v vy‘ ii a\» .rgt "v‘ n;""‘b' .. "A A . ‘ . .5114 or 0U r4. , 7‘. ‘1.’ N .4 NC n . . ,., LI— r—‘ “L. “In 8A An unexpected finding, and one that could have implications for dissonance or balance theory, was the significant negative correlations between the amount of monetary reward received for working with the mentally retarded and the ABS-MR attitude levels (Tables 15, 16, and 19). Multiple correlations for the SER group (Table 16) between contact with the mentally retarded and total ABS—MR attitude responses shows the comparison to be positive and significant at the .OA level. The SER per- sonal moral evaluative and personal feeling levels of the ABS-MR correlated positively and significantly with the independent variable of contact. However, when SER par- tial correlations were considered, frequency of contact was negatively related to the personal action level of the ABS—MR (p<05). None of the SER group comparisons for any of the levels were in accord with the requirements set by H-S. An interesting finding in relation to SER contact (Table 16) was the significant negative correlations be- tween enjoyment of contact with the mentally retarded and the societal normative and personal feeling levels of the ABS—MR. From a behavioral perspective, however, the personal action level by enjoyment of contact comparison was significant (p<05) in a positive direction. 85 The multiple correlations for the PMR group (Table 17) between all contact variables and the separate levels of the ABS—MR yielded one significant correlation which was for the personal action level of the ABS-MR (p<05). The only significant partial correlation for the PMR group was between the personal action level and amount of con- tact with the mentally retarded, however, the correlation was negative. The multiple correlation between contact and the ABS—MR for the RST group (Table 18) resulted in one posi- tive significant correlation of .51 (p<05) at the societal normative level. Partial correlations between individual predictor contact variables and attitude levels revealed three significant relationships for the RST group. The relationships were between the crucial indicator variables as stated in H-5 and progressively more action oriented levels of the ABS-MR; MR enjoyment significantly related to the societal normative level, HP alternative signifi- cantly related to personal moral evaluative level, and HP avoidance significantly related to the personal action level. This progression makes psychological sense but frequency of contact pp: ii is not related to any of the ABS-MR levels in this comparison. However, a perusal of Appendix A, Table 8, shows amount of contact with the mentally retarded significantly related to the societal normative and personal action levels of the ABS-MR 86 (p>01 and p>01 respectively). Jordan's work (1968, 1969) helps explain this problem when he predicted and confirmed the importance of other contact variables besides amount of contact in attitude formation. Multiple correlations for the PNR group (Table 19) yielded one positive significant difference between all independent contact variables and the ABS—MR societal stereotypic level. The partial coefficient between HP income and the ABS—MR stereotypic level was positive and significant at the p<001 level. HP alternatives were nega- tively related to the ABS-MR societal normative level (p<01) while MR enjoyment was positively related to the same level. H—5 was supported;based on the significant positive multiple correlations between combined contact Variables and the total ABS—MR scale. .Belating Attitudes and Religiosity h:h.-—Persons who score high on stated importance Of‘religion will score iph on positive attitudes toward 'the mentally retarded. It can be seen from Table 20 that H—6 was supported in one instance. The relationship be— tween religious importance and personal feeling level yielded a highly significant negative correlation of —30 (p<007) for the PNR group. The significant positive corre- lation between personal action and religious importance for the PMR group (Table 20) was contrary to that predicted 87 .mmm u z m .UmpuHEo mHmEHomQH zoo om mooo mg no mo NH om Nm NH No mm oN MH m mHoHoHsz oH oo Ho NH om No- om oN oo oo mo :H oo oo Neocm m2 om oou. mo mH- mo mo on so- mm mo- om oo- oo Ho- ocsoem m2 oo Ho mo Ho o: oo mo mm mH oH HH HH- m: mo- .Loon o: mo mH- Ho oH: no mH- o: mo- mo mo- mH oH- oo oo. msomcH o: moo Hm moo om Ho oH No mH oo HH mH oH NH mo: .oHo>m om so Ho mo NH om mo- om oo NN mo om mo: o: oo- ocooem o: .me L .me L .mHm L .mHm L .wwc L .mHm L .wflm L Lofi>wcmn m>Hum3Hm>m cofluoq wCHHomm Hwoflpocpodn: HmLOE ELoz oflqmpoomem mmaomHLm> Hauoe HmcomLo; HmCOmng HmCOmLoL choanm Hmpmfioom HMpmHoom ucmocoamocH m.Q:OLm HmLOp :moHLmE pomLLOO pcm xfilmm< cmmzpmn HwLOHpmHmLLoo HmHuLmQ ocm maafipaszll.ma mqm<8 88 .om n 2m 1 L. J) * C 0 C2 0 .——l v‘-) at +3 -H H "‘4 omgmL ocm coflpmosoo Hmfiooomm .Uopuflso maweflooaa :3 :m N_ N: ll no rs .T H; J: mm mm m: mm x wadflpazz J .u H; -n H: ;:n a, N» a H: m .m: am I AOoCm x2 Hi, ,. H: F o . C o H ,1: 3 : J ; f H H a i. Q o H a L _ 3 H . ma H:| m_ _ I I; H. l. N. so t I no mo mm ma pzjoEm m2 Hi om mm :H oH H, oo so ,gc 4mm on oH mH so .LooHo a: Ho mm: m: a: on Na: mm pH: Hg hm: LH on: 0H Hm: oEooco m: as mu .i as NH #1 .n :H \o cw pm mH pm me: .UHo>m m: mo mH HH :m N» ;H »m no mm mH- :3 NH oN Ho- pcsoem a: mHm L .wwm L .mHu L .MHn L .mHn L .qwn L .mww L Lom>mgmz o>Hpm3Hm>g cowpoq mcflflmom HmoHpoCLOQAH HmLoE ELo: owdmpomLouw wmfiomHLm> HmpOD HmcomLmL HmcoanL HmccuLoi Hm:0x:qc Hmpofloom Hmpoooow osmocoomch .mo30Lm imam cmoHLmE pomucoo ocm mrlmnc cmoZme HucoflumHoLLoo HmeLmQ Ucm maquaszll.ma mqm<8 2f:TL.._:;.H-L,Z.;.N4.... .H i ulH 2.. HE: ..H;H.::H.TI.\.H. ..:.:.§. 89 .om .| 2m .UmUmemL AHHMLLmE mg» no mpcmme m .UmppHEo mHmEHomQ H oo Hm mo o: NH NH oo om oo om NH mo om om m oHoHoHsz mm oo oo om mo Ho: o; oH no No- mN so no Ho Neocm x: No mo- no gm- HN oo MH Mi: so mH Nm NH Hm oH ocooem m: om mH 0N mo o. oo om 3H mo No- mm oH om :H .LooHo o: mo oH- No Ho so No- 3m mo mo oH mo No oo mm- onocH a: om oo. o: HH NN so- No NH- .o HH- oN so mo oH- .oHo>m a: oN no No mm ow om ._.H oo mH: .HH mm- oo mo 2:05 a: mHm L .mfim L .uHm L .nH: L mHn L .bHu L .Mon L - LoH>mng w>HowsHm>u :oHpo< mcflHomm HmOHpoco0dmI HmLo: ELoz 0HdmoomLopn moaomHLm> HmuOB Hmcomme HmcomLmi HMCOQLmL HmCOanL kuowoow Hapmfloom pcmocmooccH :moHLmE oomucoo ocw mz-wm< cmozump a mcoaumHoLLoo HmeLwo pcm mHQHpasoIIwNH mqm<9 9O .mLmzowmp Hoonom Lmaswom .UoupHEo mHmEHooQM mH no No on mm om oN om 3H mo no Ho mm mm m mHoHoHsz mH mm No oo- o: MH Ho _...._.o H, 3 so Hm No oo LOSE m: 0H om OH am mo 00 mm OH u man on 3H mo mm uczoEm m2 mN mo mm moi 00 no mm mH so Hm Ho won ma Hm- .Lopflm ax om mH- m: mH- Nm :o- mm Ho mm “H mm wH- mo mm- esoocH Lx mm NH mo mm co me on ma mH on aN so am man .ofloyw mm mm Non om ,Q- on ma mm :H- rm OHI on so HN mo pczoem m: .me L .mfim L .wfln L .www L .HH” L .mLu L .mw: L - LoH>mgoL .>HHm3Hm>m :ofluo< wConom HMOHomLpoom: HaLoE ELo: oflqmpooLopm meQmHLm> Hmuoe HmCOmme HmconLom HmcomLmL Hm:owLom Hmoofloom Hmpofloom pcmocmqoocH .nmjoLm Jme CMUHL®E MOGUCOU UCM WEIDLQ mmmfiumflflwH-LOwpwflmcucHOO HQHULMQ USN QHQHUHSEII.®H m4mm mm Ho- :m :H mm mH- mm wo- m: no ON :0 mo om- unsoem m: L .me L .mHm L .mH- L .wH- L .mHm L .me L LoH>mcmn m>Hom3Hm>g :oHoo< wcHHmmm HmoHpmzooom: HmLox ELo: QHQmpommem mmHowHLm> Hmuoe HwCOanL HmCOanm HmCOmLoL HmconLoL HmpoHoom HmpmHoom pcmpcoomncH .mojOLw uxui :moHLoE<-cmonmE LOL noHomHLm> pomucoQ 6cm minnm¢ soospmo HcoHpmHoLLoo HmeLwQ 6cm mHQHszzI-.mH mqm¢e . n .A, of u v"¥ n J : "7'2." “1 .5...\. VA .flu LN AFN - 92 and is discussed in Chapter VI. Table 6 in Appendix A shows a positive significant correlation between religious importance and attitude intensity for the PMR group. Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables H—7.--Amount of education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. The data indicate, when the whole sample is consid— ered, there are no significant relationships between amount of education and the total ABS—MR attitude levels (Table 21). Observing the groups separately finds the HST group responding as predicted to the total ABS—MR (poH mpszppm mzlmm< me msp cmmzpoo mHm>oH mocmOHLHLmHm pcm .moooLw NLZL oco .momm . mzL .mmmm cmOHLmEmH HCOHPNH®L§OO|Ioom mamQE 9“ .HH mHQMB CH mlm mmLOCpoom mom m .UmppHso mHmEHooQH om Ho Ho om om .mHm oo oo- mm oo mH L Hoooe oN om mo :N oN .mHm mo mH Ho mo- :c- L o om NN mo mo Ho .me No mo mm oo- Ho L m Nm om Ho mN o: .mHm No mo- am no mH L H mm mm om mm mm .mHm oo oo oH oo- mH L m H: mm mm as om .mHo mo oH- NH oH mH L m on mo mm on :m .mHm mo- mm- NH mo- mo L H onLHooom Lo ozoozo LoOLo Hoooo LZL 9mm mas mom .Loom HLLLH .moooLm NLZL oco .momm .mmzL .mmmm CMQHLoEmH ooszppm m2umm< me on» coozpmo mHm>mH moLmQHLHcmHm wcw H COLLLHQLLoo--.HH HHoHL 95 .HH mHQMB CH mum mmpOCpOOM mom m .UmppHEo mHMEHomQH mN om mn mH oH .mHm mo- oH- HH- mm oH L Hmooo om oo HN oN oH .me Ho- Ho mo- no mm L o mm m ow om mm .me no- nH- mo mH oo L m mH mn HH NH mm .mHm oo- oo- mm- om mo L n mn on ON mm on .me mo- oo- oo- NH mH- L m mN om mm om oH .mHm mo- MH- oo- oH om L N no Nm mm mH mo .mHm mH No Ho oH Hm L H won L:OLo Hmoos LZL 9mm 12L mom .ooLm Hm>oH .mL30Lm NLZL oco .momm . mzL .mmmm sonLmEmH mUSUHUUm milmmd. XHm m3». C®®3umfl WH®>®H mOCMUH-cwficmflm USN H LQHQmHmLLoo-.mm mqmqe 96 the researcher more understanding of the relationships between certain variables. In regard to H—8, increases in age may influence the knowledge or awareness of a per- son to how others view the mentally retarded (stereotypic level) but have no effect on that individual's own per- sonal behavior. H-8 was confirmed. fl:9.-—flomgn will score higher on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than meg. The multiple means test for hypothesis 9 indicates (Table 23) that Mexican—American men had significantly more positive stereotypic attitudes than Mexican—American women, a finding opposite to that predicted. The adjusted mean of 35 for the 76 males was significantly greater than the adjusted mean of 33 for the 150 females. Although males are more aware of other persons' attitudes toward the mentally retarded, the sexes in the present sample do not differ at the more personal or behavioral end of the attitude spectrum. Hypothesis 9 was not confirmed. Bfilating Attitudes and Change Orientation §:lg.--Persons who score high on change orientation 'will score high_on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. The hypothesis for change orientation and attitudes toward the mentally retarded was supported based on the Significant (p0 5 to; .8 so 29A 255 2 259 259 Value 15. hfficacy-Cont. 50 2 23 5! 29 29 50 2b 24 82 23 23 16. Efficacy—Int. 53 2 29 no 28 28 so 28 28 82 28 28 Knowledge 17. MA Knowledge '8 16 lo a 1. l7 5- 16 16 82 16 17 Contact 18. HI Amudnt 3 3 30 A 2.3 u N 1.7 82 U 1.8 19 hi Avc:d 3 u.2 3 2 A 2 9' 2 3.9 81 2 3 2C hf income 0 3 2 SO 2 1.1 88 3 l.“ 80 3 1.2 21 HP Alter. 3 3 A.; at l 1.2 53 1 1.2 82 l l.u 22. MR Amount 5- L 3 9 50 l 1.6 53 l 1.9 82 1 1.7 23. 38 Enjoy. 5d 9 9 SO 2 U.“ ’8 l 1.8 82 2 2.3 tcmo- 2A. Age 30 1 2.3 53 l 3.4 a: l 2.7 78 1 2.8 graphic 25. hdui. Amount EC 9 U.A 50 U 3 50 u 5 81 u 3.7 26 Religion lrpcr. 30 2 4.2 50 2 9.3 50 2 u.2 77 2 4.3 27. Religion Adher. 50 2 9.2 50 2 A.2 50 2 u.2 77 2 u.2 Change 28. Self Change 51 A 2.A 50 3 2 u 50 5 2.u 82 u 2.3 Orien— 29. Child Rearing 50 2 3.1 50 2 3.2 50 2 3.3 82 2 3.2 tation 30. Birth Control 50 3 2.u 50 3 2.u so 3 2.9 79 3 2.9" 31. Automation so 2 3.1 50 2 3.2 50 3 3.5 82 3 3.3 32. Political Lead. 50 3 2.9 50 3 2.9a 50 u 3.1 82 3 2.5 33. Rule Adher. 50 u 2.6 50 u 2.2 50 u 2.5 82 2 2.7 Education 3A. Local Aid 50 3 3 SO 3 3 50 3 3.3 80 3 3.2 35. Federal Aid 50 3 3.2 50 3 2.8 50 3 3.1 82 3 3.2 36. Ed. Planning 50 3 2.6 50 3 2.6 50 3 2.6 82 3 2.6 98 Jig. of Multiple Means ’J l. N M Ad‘. 4 h V Adj. 7 r F Test 16 35 3b 19 33 3‘ 3.81 .81 M>r, R>8, R>N 7o 36 38 1f’ 3’ g: 7.‘9 .1wf“ R>S, P>T, P>N 70 '3 ’1", li‘ ‘ u:— 1.21 .VZL F>s , F)” To Hf, £45 1{ H3. 117, If-l‘ ,g-Jfl R> ,, Ryf, P>‘.‘ 76 be Uf 1i ~l 9; $.33 .'87 J>T, :>u, R>T, R>N ?c 33 3; ;* 3; gv - .T’ . .; .>T, P>:, i>fi, R>T, R>N, T>N 7t) 3:] “it 1‘ “I ‘ it :‘3 170(2 .331“? F1)“, F)O’ H)‘: 7- 93 ~3 ;<- -3 .3 ’.i. .3.; a» , ?>., E>u 7o 41 41 l'w « . 1 ~ .-~ 2» , 2>:, ~>L 76 L6 as 1 t ~' 1.5 .‘7 76 as 4t 1*. 3: w .3 .r , 7b 88 4: I oi u- l. L .SL) 76 3b 39 ltu ;« 3 >.r1 .LLQT J>T, C>N, R>i, N>T, R>N 76 t2 Eta L'- . t .11 .cp. F>T, L>X 76 2' 29 l:.- .; 23 .T* .‘3 76 28 ‘9 l‘t .5 ~ .%1 .7F 7t lo lo lg. 17 1" . - .11~ x>1 .t J ..l 1.1 .. 1.-3 .-.Z .~R, S>L, F>H, R>T ”>3, R>H -t ; 3. ;.; . . 5 ~", run, ‘>T, t>” h>N -b 2 l.t ; - . .' ‘ ..’o .dlcfi >1, ._>h, .1>H, 'I>R IJ>R To ; 2.u l-- . l. -a .1 . .-5 S>T, S): C>H, H>T h>8 7t 2 3.1 - - .1 3-.7T . C,: ¢>-, “.9, 35?, X>1 75 3 3.1 .. ; :.rd ..-.5 .>T, 1»x, ‘>T, u>2 a>t 76 '3 ". ‘ ' . 1‘. 7 1.1» '_'\r. "7. .3" 7)? fax” R>N J , i . --- .- - .I., i'.-, L’AV -'l, 76 4 «.l 1*. a . 1.;t ._ Li T>., :>E, £>1, T>9 ”>7, N>R 2" u LU," U 0.” .14 . '3 F>M 3 2.3 llu 2 2.~ .1' .38 3 3.1 lib 3 3.; .39 .76 2 2.o 153 3 2.7 c.37 .c.cs T>S N>S, T>R, ”>2 R) 03 K) C’ ,, 3.. Q=§3FJR ’ 2 p<.OS R PMY 1) F- \j C U) U.) F—J H NJ T=hCT, N=ThR. 3 T>R, T>N N>R 99 which accounted for .07% of the variance of the total ABS-MR by the independent variable (six change orientation variables) for the total groups. Levels 3, 5, and 6 of the ABS—MR (Table 24) were most affected by change orientation for the total group. The multiple R between change orientation and the action level was .30 (p<002) which accounted for .09% of the vari- ance in the criterion by the independent variables. The multiple R between change orientation and the feeling level of the ABS-MR was .28 and accounted for .08% of the variance. The multiple R between change orientation and the personal moral evaluative level was .BU and accounted for .06 of the variance. The partial correlation coefficients for the total group shows self change to be significantly related (p<05) to positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. More progressive child rearing practices and the belief that automation can be helpful to mankind were also signifi— cantly related to positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Birth control was negatively correlated with the per— sonal feeling and action levels and total of the ABS—MR for the total groups. Table 10 in Appendix A indicates the total group's mean response to variable 30, Birth Control, was "it is probably_right to practice birth Control." 1130 .mmm n z m .mz» new .emm .mzm .mmmm . .ooopfiEo mHmEHooQH mo om moo om moo mm mm 3H :9 am w: ma 0: 0H m oaofipasz om so me no mo ms am so no me so mo- am no . .mee< masm cm mo mm mo am so 0. no .3 ms .0 no om mo .omoq Hmofioflaom am mo :2 mo pom ma 00 mo 3m no am so mm. mo coflmeoo3< mo can mooo mm: woo man mm on: to :3: am moi :m Ho Hoppcoo mphfim am No we ma am no: 2H ca man ma om mo Ha HHI mzflbmoh UHHQQ :0 :H OH HH am so mm :0 sh no so NH ma mo mmcmgo camm .mfim L .wfim L .mww L .ufln ; .mox L .wfim L .wwm L - Lofi>mnom osmomzmm>u cofloo< ucflamom Hoofloogooom: ago: Ego: oaozoompmom mmaomfipm> Hmooe Hmcomsmm Hmcombop Hmconsom anconsom Hmoofloom Hmoofloom ucoocmooocH .mdsogw mamoop :moHLoE< Icwofixoz Lou moHomHLm> cofipmocmfiso omcmco pom mzummq coozooo HocofiumHoLLOo Hmflonmo cam oaafiofisgnl.zm mqm32mx usonazamsg coflooq wcflamwm awoflpocooan: HsLom ELoz ofloxpomLoom mmaomHLm> Hmoos HmcomLos HmconLoo HmcooLom assonLos Hmoofloon Hmpofioom psoocoooocH Icwofixoz Low .masoLm omaomHLw> cofioMocoHLo omcmzo new Lfinu mm :bmzobo lzuu zooHLoEq H coflomHoLLoo Hwfipro pcm oaofipazzlu.mm mqn<8 1()3 .om I 2m .oooLMpoL AHHMpcmE on» L0 mucmLML m .omppfieo mHmEHooQH ss sm so ms so om mo om so so sm sm as os m msospsoz ma om ms ma mo mm mo won ow oou ss mo mo om .Loco< masm sm . mo: mo mm: ma mm: so mo: sm mo mo so ms NH .Uwoq Hmofiufiaom mo mo: mm mo oo mm om so: as oon sH Hm: ms HHI cofiowEou3< os so: soo ms: Hm so mo mo: mo mo so Ho ma om HOLocoo coLHm so os os mo so so so so- ms no so so oo oo mcLmeL ossoo om os so so ms as .m ms- ss ms oo om mm ms mmcmoo Lsmm .mfiw L .mHo L woo L .mHn L mo) L .wflm L .mww L Lofl>mgoo o>Low3Hm>m cosooq wcwfimom HmoLoo:uoom: HmLo: ELo: osomuooLoom moaowHLm> Hwoos chomLoo HmconLoo HmCOuLos HmCOoLoo Hmoofloom Hapmwoom ocoocwooocH .mosoLm um: :moHLoE< uchonz LOL mmaomem> :ofiomocmHLo omcmso ocm xfinwm< comsooo H mcooomLmLLOQ smLoLmo new msososoz--.om moose 104 the retarded (r = -.33, pmcmm o>Hom3Hm>m :oHoo< wcHHmom HmoHooLooom: HmLOE ELoz oHompomLopm moHomHLm> Hmoob Hmcomme HmCOoLoo ngowLos HmconLom HmpmHoom HapoHoom unmocoomocH .mddOLm momm cmoHLoE< . scoonoz LOL moHomHLm> ncoHumHoLLoo HmeLmo ocw oHoHonzlu.sm mHmmcmo o>Hum3Hm>x coHpo< mcHHoos HooHoocooos: HmLoE ELoz oHvooomem moHomHLm> Hmuos HmconLom HmLOnLoo chooLom HmconLoo HmpoHoom HmumHoom ucmocmooocH .mQ30Lw Nmzo cmoHLoE< IcmOonE LQL meomHLm> coHomucoHLo mwcmco ocm mzumo< coozooo anoHomHoLLoo HmeLwo new oHoHpHJEnu.wN mqmoo LoOLo Hoses moo Loo moo moo .oooo HmLmo .mooOLo mozo oco .msmm .mozL .mooo cmOLLmss Icmonoz Lop cooomosoo oo on oLoEcLo>ow ocm mHo>oH mooospso monoos Low moo cmmzsmo mHmLmH mucoOLLLcoLm oco HosesoonLLooun.om moose .U 1:»... H 00.230 sh s :5; m. 723 3:0 s -s L... H lLLCCII . Iw .55; oH mHo>oH mocmoomocwom Ugo H mcooowHoLLooll.om mHm Parents of the Mentally Retarded>Regular School Teachers> Parents of the Non—retarded. An analysis of variance, as depicted in Table 23, failed to confirm hypothesis 13. As can be seen in Table 23 the four group means for all levels of the ABS—MR plus the total ABS-MR were significantly different. The lowest E was .01 while four of the seven E's reached the .0005 level of significance. Although the Group E's show significant differences tsetween the groups for each level (Variable l-7), the IWultiple Means Tests reveal not all groups were signifi— <3antly different from each other on each level. The Mexican-American PMR group had significantly rnore positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded on eevery level than did the other groups. The number of sig— rlificant group differences increased as the levels became rnore behavioral or action oriented. However, contrary to 112 hypothesis 13, the order of group favorableness was PMR>SER>RST>PNR, the reversal being between the PMR and SER groups. The ABS—MR intensity measures (Variables 8, 9, l3, and 1M, Table 23) indicating the PMR group to be more cer— tain or sure of their attitudes than the other groups is further evidence for the relationship between contact and intensity. Intensity levels 3, A, and 5 (Variables 10—12, Table 23) did not significantly discriminate between the four groups. Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality §:1fl.——The ABS-MR scale levels or attitude subuni— verses will form a Guttman simplex for each of the sample groups. The results from the four sample groups (Table 31) form an approximate simplex as predicted from Table A. Examination of Matrices 31.1, 31.3, 31.5, and 31.7 in Table 31 indicates that correlations between the six levels decrease in relation to the number of steps two levels are removed from each other. The Q2 value for the SER original matrix (Matrix 31.1) was .83 compared with a best Q2 value of .88 (Matrix 31.2). The original SER matrix (Matrix 31.1) had four reversals of level correlations. As indicated in Chapter III, Hamersma's (1969) study uses "six—reversals" n\u pa 8. s :v rHM 0. . VA “A ‘w o , AUG 113 as the maximum acceptable for a 6 x 6 data matrix to con— tain and still be accepted as "approximating" a simplex. Matrix 31.3 for the PMR group reveals the original matrix Q2 value to be .89 while the best order Q2 value (Matrix 31.“) was .92, a difference of .03. There were five reversals in the original matrix. The ordered ma- trix (Matrix 31.“) increased the Q2 value by .03 and left the matrix with only one less reversal. The Q2 value of .88 for the original RST matrix (Matrix 31.5) was .05 less than the best ordered matrix Q2 value (Matrix 31.6) of .93. The original matrix (Matrix 31.5) had five reversals while the best ordered matrix (31.6) had none. The Q2 value for the original PNR matrix (Matrix 31.7) was .84. The best 92 matrix (Matrix 31.8) value was .85, an increase of .01 over the original matrix. This increase of .01 did not result in a better order than the one hypothesized. Also, the best ordered matrix did not decrease the number of reversals in the matrix, both matrices having four reversals. The simplex results of Table 31 lend support to an 1fiypothesis of an invariate structure between the six scale levels of the ABS—MR. . H... as. :LIH llfll u Ho>oH mo. pm L Lo osz> HmoHpHLoo u Ho>oH mo. pm M Lo osHm> HmoHpHLom u Ho>oH mo. pm M Lo oSHm> HooHoHLos u Ho>oH mo. om M Lo osz> HmoHpHLom .coHuoHLomoo oHoEmm LOL oxop oomN .oocHHLooc: oLm mHmeo>mmH NH mN oH mm oN o - om Ns HH mo Ho o - so no mm mm mo o Hm HH «a Ho mm o - Hs om oH mH o - mo ss sH Ho m - Hm NM oo oH o - oH oH mm Ho o - so mm oN s - on oN oH s - oH mH MH s - oN oH mm s - om mN m - om oH s - so om m - oo mm m mHm>mH Lo =LmoLo= - om m - ms n - os N -- Hm N LOL xHmee m.Hm o.Hm q.Hm N.Hm xLLooe - H xHLome - H soLoms - H xHLome - H comm mcHmem mo. u o oooo m.. u N» L.«i a u N- o-oo oo. u N? ammo NH Hm .m oH HH o - «H so no mo L. o - so Ho oo mm o: o Hm mm oH HI oH o :oHoos HmcomLoo - mN oH NN mm o - Hm oo NM NH o - Ho oH oo mm o - Hm sH mm HH o ocoHomL HocomLoo - so mm oN s - mo sH H: s - MH “H NH s - oo Ho oH s .ooo .oosz HocomLmo - ms MN m - on mH s - os mu m - mo oN m .so HoLoz HomemLmo - om N - os u - Ho o - om N ELoz HmomHooo s.Hm m.Hm m.Hm H.Hm xHLosr -- H xHLowE -- H xHLooi In H xHLomE II H .ooLopm HmpoHoom so. u no HochHL: am. n a» HmcHMHL: mm. H j HfiszsL: mm. n no HmcwwHL: o s m N H o o s m N H s o s m N H o s m N H oonEom No-Imzm ngeww own-sum oHseHu om-nmzo ELos o>HuoHLowoD m mmHLEoo oo-moo uonQEwo mzm new . mm .12 m .m w cmoHLoEf the results depends on the adequacy of the measurement tDase upon which the results stand. In order to research 13he problems which have been successfully leveled at 116 117 attitudinal research in the past, Jordan (1968) has ap- plied and extended the conceptual facet analysis scheme set forth by Guttman. Instrumentation A research instrument based on facet analysis was developed by Jordan and his students called the Attitude Behavior Scale-Mental Retardation (ABS-MR). This scale consisted of six levels, each corresponding to a certain level of the hypothesized attitude universe. Following the criteria for scale construction set forth by Magnuson (1966, p. 207) those items correlating highest with the total score for each level but having low correlations with each other were included in the final scale (see Appendix B). Included in the total research with the attitude scale were items that tapped the predictor variables of the study (see Chapter III); which Jordan (1968) has labeled determinants of attitudes——demographic, socio- psychological, contactual, and knowledge. A pilot study, using the "known group" approach, ‘Was conducted to test the predictive ability of the in- EStrument. Except for a few anomalies, the instrument Ciid discriminate between levels as well as being a sound Criterion on which to base predictions. 118 Design and Analysis Procedures Using the "known group" method, the present research sampled four groups selected from three Southwest Texas border cities. Each sample contained 50 subjects except the parents of the nonretarded group which had 82 subjects. The proportion of males to females was unequal, there being more females than males. Random selection of sub— jects was difficult, however, an attempt was made to se— lect randomly in several ways: (a) selecting subjects from several border areas instead of from just one; (6) sampling different sections of the community in the case of the parents of the mentally retarded and parents of the nonretarded; and (c) sampling different schools and retardation facilities in the communities in the case of the special education and rehabilitation worker and regu— lar school teacher groups. The three cities contained a high proportion of Mexican—American persons, 85% of some areas being populated by persons with Spanish surnames. The four determinants of attitudes were represented by 29 independent variables (see Table 10) which were inter— <30rrelated with content and intensity scores of the ori- tSerion (ABS—MR) across each level (including total scores). TWiis facilitated testing fourteen hypotheses using simple Charrelations, multiple correlation, and one and two-way 8Analysis of variance statistical techniques. 119 Research Findings and Suggestions for Further Research The results of this study indicate that values, knowledge, contact, and certain demographic variables were effective predictors of attitudes toward the men— tally retarded. The amount of knowledge held by the total sample of Mexican-Americans was predictive of positive attitudes only at the cognitive levels. Amount of knowledge did not result in more positive attitudes at the feeling and action level. The contact variables, as a set, were predictive of positive attitudes toward the retarded. More specifi- cally, enjoyment of contact, alternative rewarding ex— periences, and ease of avoidance of contact were most pre- dictive of positive attitudes. Amount of contact per se was not indicative of positive attitudes. In some cases amount of contact was predictive of negative attitudes. Change orientation was found to be a significant predictor of positive attitudes toward the retarded. Will- ingness to change, acceptance of industrial innovations, and preference for a non—structured orientation were highly predictive of positive attitudes toward the mentally re- tarded at all levels of the ABS—MR. 0f the demographic variables, only age was predic- tive of positive attitudes toward the retarded and then only at the stereotypic level. 120 Strong support was given to the use of facet anal- ysis in scale construction since the four simplex ma- trices formed a Guttman Simplex as predicted. This finding also lends support to the multidimensional struc- ture of attitudes. Discussion The following section deals with a summary of each of the substantive hypotheses as well as a discussion of unexpected findings. Relating Attitudes and Values g:l.—-The value variable of "Efficacy" purported to measure the amount of control one feels he has over his environment. The failure of the attitudes of the four Mexican-American groups to correlate significantly with the Efficacy scale (content) led to the rejection of the research hypothesis. The responses of the total .group fell in the middle of the continuum of scores on the scale. This may reflect an important finding in ‘terms of a change from a fatalistic outlook on life and Tzhe lack of control over it to a movement toward the (Zenter of the environmental control continuum. In relation to intensity responses to both the lkBS—MR and the Life Situations scales (see Tables 5 to 9 tin Appendix A) it is obvious that there was a high degree be certainty between how sure the respondents were of 121 ‘their attitudes and how confident they were of how much control they had over their environment at this point in time. This seems to reflect a certain realistic sense of expectancy on the part of Mexican—Americans and a readiness or openness to change. In view of the fact that the Mexican-American, like the American Black, has been exploited and literally forgotten (Rubel, 1966; Mittelbach, 1967), the results of H-l are in a "positive" direction even though the hypothesis was not confirmed. Relating Attitudes and Knowledge §:2.-—The field theory of Lewin (1935) and the work of such balance or consistency theorists such as Reider (1946), Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955), Festinger (1957), Rokeach (1960), and Adorno (1950) deal with the relation- ship between amount of knowledge and attitudes. The more lPMR>RST>PNR was re— jected. The results showed the order of favorableness to 135 toe PMR>SER>RST>PNR, the reversal being between PMR and EHLR. Hypothesis l3 grew out of the eleven nation study toy Jordan (1968) who found the SER group most favorable 1J1 their attitudes toward the physically disabled. Jor- dzan's study did not contain a sample from the parents of true retarded. The presence of a PMR group in his study (u nuay have resulted in a change in the ordering of hit groups. The present study should have an icipated the above cmrdering of group favorableness of attitudes toward the Iaetarded. Parents of the retarded are more personally iifivolved with the retarded, thus, it would be eXpected ‘tkiey would be more sensitive to the positive attitudes C>f others (stereotypic level), more aware of what th§y_ kbelieve the retarded ought to be able to do (moral eval- Llative), more positive in what they would do in situations Mlith the retarded (hypothetical level), more positive in ‘tfdeir affect toward the retarded (feeling level), and more IDCDSitive in their behavior toward the retarded (action 1 evel) . As the levels of the ABS—MR became more action ori— erlted, the significant differences between groups increased t;C> a point that the personal action level (Variable 6, r1Viable 23) significantly discriminated the degree of atti— tLlee positiveness of all four groups. The ABS-MR intensity ‘Vfiriables (Variables 8—1A, Table 23) reinforce the above 136 finding by showing the PMR group to be more certain, sure, or intense in their attitudes toward the retarded. The findings resulting from H-l3 indicate that parents of mentally retarded children have a great deal to offer to special education and rehabilitation workers in particular, as well as to regular school teachers and parents of the nonretarded. The contribution of the PMR group may be a consultative one whereby their views are considered when decisions or programs affecting the men- tally retarded are developed. One important finding resulting from H—l3 was the ability of the ABS-MR to differentiate between groups of persons with varied backgrounds. The six scale levels are obviously tapping different aspects of a person's attitude toward the attitude object; the retarded. Belating Attitudes and Iflultidimensionality fi:lfl.--The matrices displayed in Table 31, arranged Eiccording to Jordan's (1968) six level theory, reveal the Ciorrelations between the six levels of the ABS—MR form a C3uttman simplex for each group sampled. Confirmation of fi—lu was arrived at using visual and g2 analysis (Kaiser, 3.962). Attitude research closely related to this study re- ].ied on visual inspection as to the confirmation or dis— Confirmation of the multidimensional quality of attitudes 137 (Erb, 1969; Hamersma, 1969; Jordan, 1968). Visual in- spection focused on whether or not the hypothesized atti- tude levels closest together correlated higher than levels farther apart (contiguity hypothesis). Visual inspection of Table 31 shows, with a few exceptions for each group, that those levels closest together do correlate higher than levels farther apart. The weakness of using "visual tests" of relationship to answer research questions is apparent in that visual inspection cannot take into account the influence or ef- fects of other variables. One method of simplex analysis developed by Kaiser (1962) was recently applied by Maierle (1969) in a meth— odological study of Guttman facet analysis. Maierle at— tempted to determine if items used in each scale corre- sponding to an attitude level actually resulted in a pro- gression or if such a progression could be accounted for by response set or order of administration. Maierle used Iriginal hypothesized simplex and the best ordered simplex Eire assigned a descriptive statistic, "g2," with a range C>f 0.00 to 1.00. Maierle administered the levels randomly 61nd in the hypothesized six—scale order. .Maierle's anal- sis revealed that the Q2 values for the randomly Q 138 administered, randomly ordered matrices were less than the g2 values for hypothetically ordered matrices. The Q2 value obtained for each group (Table 31) in the present study indicates there is little difference between the hypothesized level order and the best simplex approximation. The Q2 values for the four matrices, coupled with visual affirmation, give added strength to the hypothesis that the ABS-MR scale levels do form a Guttman simplex for each of the four Mexican-American groups. This finding also partially answers the question of whether or not order of administration and response set could be plausible competing hypotheses. Confirmation of H-lu can be viewed as a measure of construct validity for the ABS—MR and sup— port for the use of facet theory in scale construction. Recommendation for Further Research Egross-cultural Research The data collected in the present study along with Esimilar data collected in other cultures should be com- tJined in a larger cross-cultural study aimed at determin- j~ng whether or not: (a) the ABS-MR is a useful criterion VVhen used cross-culturally; (b) equivalency of meaning and I“elevancy are problems when the ABS—MR is used in diverse Clultural settings; and (c) knowledge, value, contact and (demographic variables are predictive cross-culturally of attitudes toward mental retardation. 139 Attitude Change Experiments The ABS-MR should be used as a criterion in a study designed to determine if some experimentally manipulated treatment is able to change attitudes of randomly selected persons toward the mentally retarded. Such a study could use a posttest-only control group design: R X 0 R 0 Sampling Although random subject selection and assignment was attempted in the present study, such an effort was not as successful as would have been desired. Survey research of the present type does not lend itself to strictly control— led randomization, thus generalizations of results are al— ways suspect. Future cross-cultural attitude studies Should pay particular attention to randomization procedures. Problems in cross- or sub—cultural subject selection Tnay be avoided or lessened if the researcher follows some CDf the recommendations below: 1. Notify local authorities well in advance of re- SSearch plans and experimental subject needs. 2. Be ggry familiar with the area to be researched ( language competency is invaluable). 3. Attempt to come with references from persons Linown by the host country or area leaders (increased Credibility). \v 140 A. Make research needs clear and to the point in (Irder to facilitate data collection. 5. Conduct oneself in such a manner that further rwesearch within the locality will be permitted. Too often rwesearch opportunities in other countries are hindered by rwssearchers who seem to be ignorant of simple human rela- tixans techniques. Further attitude research using the ABS-MR should seslect as large an N for each experimental group as pos- Silole. A larger N in the present study might have contri- bthed to more significant substantive findings. Silatistical Analysis Although Kaiser's g2 is an improvement over visual irlspection of simplex approximation, a more rigorous test Of? simplex approximation is needed. More specifically, Iqa;ierle (1969) states that greater attention should be gisven to such factors as the effects of correlation magni- tLude on the simplex and the effect of equal and unequal Spacings among simplex matrix entries. Efiiglication The present study could be replicated with ease in Se'Veral other border areas of Texas with a high proportion Of‘ Mexican-Americans. This would facilitate testing the (xPedibility of the findings in the present study as well 343 testing the stability and dependability of the ABS—MR. 1141 EFERENCES Adorno, T. N., Frenkel—Brunswik, R., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R. N. The authoritariangpersonality. New York: harper, 1950. Allan, N. S. On hiring the handicapped: The heart of the problem. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1962, 28 (2), 19-20. Anders, A. R., and Dayan, M. Variables related to child- rearing attitudes among attendants in an institu- tional setting. American Journal of Mental Defici- encv, 1967, 71, 838—851. Appel, M. J., Williams, C. M. and Fishell, K. N. Changes in attitudes of parents of retarded children effected through group counseling. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 68, 807-812. .Badt, M. Attitudes of university students toward excep- tional children and special education. Exceptional Children, 1957, 23, 286-289, 336. IBarclay, A., and Vaught, G. Maternal estimates of future achievement in cerebral palsied children as a func— tion of age, sex, and degree of handicap. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 69, 62- 5. Barker, R. G., Wright, B. A., Myerson, L. and Gonick, M. R. Adjustment to physical handicaps and illness. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953. Barrett, A. M., Relos, R., and Eisele, J. Vocational success and attitudes of mentally retarded toward work and money. American Journal of Mental Defici— ency, 1965, 70, 102-107. Bastide, R., and van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interracial behavior in San Paulo, hrazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-69A. BEilinkoff, C. Community attitudes toward mental retarda— tion. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 221—226? 1A2 1A3 Berreman, J. V. Some implications of research in the social psychology of physical disability. Exceptional Children, 195A, 20, 3A7-350. Bitter, J. A. Attitude change by parents of trainable retarded children as a result of group discussion. Exceptional Children, 1963, 30, 173-177. Blatt, B. The mentally retarded. Rehabilitation Record, 1961, 2, 9—25. Caldwell, B. M., and Guze, S. B. A study of the adjustment of parents and siblings of institutionalized and non- institutionalized retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 6“, 855—861. Cessna, W. C., Yasvsada, T., and Jordan, J. E. Japanese attitudes toward education and toward physically disabled persons. Japgnese Journal of Special Education, 1968, 6, l, 33-A1, 5. (In Japanese). Clark, E. T. Children's perception of educable mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 68, 602—611(a). Clark, E. T. Children's perception of a special class for educable mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 196“, 30, 289—295(b). (Zlark, M. Health in the Mexican—American culture: A community study. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. C31e1and, C. C. and Chambers, w. R. Experimental modifi- cation of attitudes as a function of an institutional tour. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 12A-130. ~ O A C3J_e1and, C. C. and Cochran, S. L. The effect of insfiitu— tional tours on attitudes of high school seniors. .. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65, 473-479. COhen, J. S. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 705—713. COl’ldell, J. F. Parental attitudes toward mental retarda- tion, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 713 85-92- 1AA Chonnor, F. P. and Goldberg, I. 1. Opinions of some teachers regarding their work with trainable children: Impli— cations for teacher education. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 6A, 658—670. ItiMichael, S. G. Vocational rehabilitation for the men- tally retarded. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1953, 31, A28-A32. LX1ngman, H. R., Eyman, R. K., and Windle, C. D. An inves- tigation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers with retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 899-908. Eholl, K. L. and Darley, F. L. Attitudes of mothers of articulatory—impaired and speech retarded children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1960, 25, 377-3814. Ekimundson, M. Los manitos. New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, 1957. Ekiwards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Efldlers, W. R. The moderately and severely retarded child: Maternal perceptions of retardation and subsequent seeking and using services rendered by a community agency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 68, 660-668. Ehrb, D. L. Racial attitudes and empathy: a Guttman facet theory examination of their relationships and deter- minants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. FValty, J. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpub— lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer— sity, 1965. FRsstinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, 111.: Row Peterson, 1957. FWDa, U. G. Tie contiguity principle in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 229-238. FVDa, U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of common- alities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220-226. 1A5 Fogel, W. Mexican-Americans in Southwest labor markets. Mexican-American Study Project, University of Cali- fornia, Los Angeles, 1967. Force, D. G. Social status of physically handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1956, 23, lOU-lO7, 132. Gordon, E. w., and Ullman, M. Reactions of parents to problems of mental retardation in children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 61, 158—163. Gottlieb, K. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward mental retardation in Colombia: Content, structure and determinants. Unpublished doc eral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. (Scheduled for December). Gowman, A. G. The war blind in American social structure. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1957. Grebler, L. The schooling gap: Signs of progress. Mexican-American Study Project, University of Cali— fornia, Los Angeles, 1967. Greenbaum, J. J., and Wang, D. D. A semantic—differential study of the concepts of mental retardation. Journal of General PsychOIOgv, 1965, 73, 257-272. Gunzburg, H. C. Vocational and social rehabilitation of the feebleminded, In A. M. and A. D. B Clarke (Eds.), Mental Deficiency: The changing outlook. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958, pp. 335—369. Guthrie, G. M., Butler, A., and Gorlow, L. Patterns of self—attitudes of retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 222—229. Guthrie, G. M., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., and White, G. N. Non—verbal expressions of self—attitudes of retarj dates. American Journal of Mental Dc iciency, 196A, A2-A9. Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure- ment. In S. A. Stauffer (Ed.) Measurement and pre- diction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action. American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 318-328. 1A6 (luttman, L. The structuring of sociological spaces. Technical Note No. 3, 1961, Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Contract No. AF 61 (052)— 121, United States Air Force. Guttman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrices. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experi- mental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966, pp. 938-958. Guttman, L., and Foa, U. G. Social contact and intergroup attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, Spring, 43-53- Hamersma, R. J. Construction of an attitude—behavior scale of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Iiaring, N. G., Stein, G. G., and Cruickshank, W. M. Atti- tudes of educators toward exceptional children. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1958. Iiarker, W. Attitudes of professionals and non-professionals toward the mentally retarded in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Revista Interamericana de Psicolggia, 1969, 3, 123—127. I*Iarrelson, L. E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany: Content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harris, L. M. Exploring the relationship between the teacher's attitudes and the overt behavior of the pupil: Case study of an aggressive girl. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 60, 536L555. Iiairris, L. M. Exploring the relationship between the teacher's attitude and the overt behavior of the pupil. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1958, 63, 260-267. Hartlage, L. C. Factors affecting employer receptivity toward the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 108—113. Heater, W. H. Attitudes of Michigan clergymen toward mental retardation and toward education: Their nature and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. 1A7 Iieider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 1996, 21, 107—112. Iieller, C. S. Mexican-Americanyyouth. New York: Random House, 1966. Iiorowitz, F., and Lovell, L. Attitudes of mothers of female schizophrenics. Child Development, 1960, 31, 299-303- Hoyt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. Psychometrika, 1991, 6, 153-160. Hutt, M. G. and Gibby, R. G. The mentally retarded child: development, education and treatment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965. International Bureau of Education. Organization of special education for mentally deficient children. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education, 1960, pp. 134-138. .Iaco, G. Mental health of the Spanish-American in Texas. In M. K. Opler (Ed.), Culture and mental health: Cross—cultural studies. New York: Macmillan Company, 1959, pp. A67—A87. ‘Iaffe, J. Attitudes of adolescents toward the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 70, 907-912. Jaiffe, J. "What's in a name"—-Attitudes toward disabled persons. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, A5, 557-560. Jcahnson, J. J. and Ferreira, J. R. School attitudes of children in special classes for mentally retarded. California Journal of Educational Research, 1958, 9, 33-37- J'Ordan, J. E. Attitude—Behavior scale-—MR (ABS-MR). East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1967, available from author. J.Ordan, J. E. The Guatemala research and training center in rehabilitation and special education. Selected convention papers--A0th annual convention. Washington, D. C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, NEA, 1962. 1A8 Jordan, J. E. The university looks at reiabilitation: an international perspective. J. Michigan Medical Sppgegy, 1962, 61, 620-623. Jordan, J. E. Rehabilitation and special education in Latin America. Papers read at the inter-American Congress of Psychology, Mar del Plata, Argentina, April, 1963, and at the Second International Seminar on Special Education, Nyborg, Denmark, July, 1963. Jordan, J. E. Special education in Latin America—-wor1d horizons in special education. Proceedings of 1963 Summer Lecture Series, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963. Jordan, J. E. Cross—national research in special education. In Inspection and introspection of special education. Selected convention papers. 92nd Annual C. E. C. Convention, Washington, D. C.: The Council for Exceptional Children, NEA, 196A. Jordan, J. E. Special education in Latin America. Phi Delta Kappan, 1964, A5 (A), 208—213. Jordan, J. E. Cross-cultural attitudes toward disabilipy. Paper read at the Ninth Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Miami, Florida, December, 196A. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physica11y disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1968. Jordan, J. E. Guttman facet design and development of a cross-cultural attitudes toward mentally retarded persons scale. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969, available from author. Jordan, J. E., and Friesen, E. W. Attitudes of rehabili- tation personnel toward physically disabled persons in Colombia, Peru, and the United States. J. of Social Psychology, 1968, 7A, 151-161. Jordan, J. E., and Cessna, W. C. A cross-cultural note: A comparison of attitudes of four occupational groups toward physically disabled persons in Japan. Journal of Social Psychology, 1969, 78, 283-28“. Jordan, J. E., and Proctor, D. 1. Relationships between knowledge of exceptional children, kind and amount of experience with them, and teacher attitudes toward their classroom integration. Journal of Special Education, 1969, fall, in press. 1U9 Jordan, J. E., Vurdelja, D., and Prazic, B. Guttman facet theory analysis of attitudes toward retardation of Yugoslav mothers of mentally retarded and non- retarded, 1969, (in press in Yugoslavia). Available from Jordan, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University. Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kelly, H. H., Hastorf, A. H., Jones, E. E., Thebaut, J. W., and Usdane, W. M. Some implications of social psy- chological theory for research on the handicapped. In L. H. Lofquist (Ed.), Psychological research and rehabilitation. Washington, D. C.: American Psy- chological Association, 1960, pp. 172-204. Kenney, E. T. Mother-Retarded child relationships. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 631-636. Kerlinger, F. N. Foundations of behavioral resgarch. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Kibbe, Pauline. Latin Americans in Texas. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1946. Kimbrell, D. L., and Luckey, R. E. Attitude change re- sulting from open house guided tours in a state school for mental retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 69, 21-23. Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962, pp. 1161117. Kniss, J. T., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., and Guthrie, G. M. Ideal self patterns of female retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1962, 67, 2A5-2H9. Kramer, C. Y. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics, 1956, 12, 307-310. Laing, A. F., and Chazan, M. Sociometric groupings among educationally subnormal children, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 73—77. Levine, S. Sex role identification and parental perception of social competence. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 70, 822-829. 150 .Lewin, K. A dynamic theopy of personality. New York: McGraw, 1935. Lingoes, J. C. An IBM 7090 program for the Guttman- Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis--1. Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 76-78. Ifladsen, W. Society and health in the lower Rio Grande Valley. Austin: Hogg Foundation for Mental Health, The University of Texas Press, 1961. Madsen, W. iexican-Americans of South Texas. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. .Mahoney, S. C., and Pangrae, I. Misconceptions of college students about mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 6“, 671—678. Ifiaierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. IWay, R. Love and will. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1969. IWanuel, H. T. The Mexican population in Texas. The Southwest Social Science Quarterly, 15, 1, 193A. BicAfee, R. O., and Cleland, C. C. The discrepancy between self—concept and ideal self as a measure of psycho- logical adjustment in educable retarded males. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 63-68. IVI<2Coy, G. F. Some ego factors associated with academic success and failure of educable mentally retarded pupils. Exceptional Children, 1963, 30, 80—8A. IV1<2Williams, C. North from Mexico: The Spanish-speaking people of the United States. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippencott Co., 1948. I“’161gnusson, D. Test theory. Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley, 1966. qundelsohn, H. A sociological approach to certain aspects of mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1954, 58, 506—510. 151 Iflercer, J. R. Patterns of family crises related to re— acceptance of the retardate. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 19-32. Pdeyerowitz, J. H. Self—derogations in young retardates and special class placement. Child Development, 1962, 33, uu3-u51. lJeyerowitz, J. H. Parental awareness of retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 637-6A3. Sitkei, F G., and Watts, C. A. Attitudes L—J. Meyers, C. E., toward special education and the handicapped in two community groups. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1906, 71, 78—8A. Idiller, R. V. Social status and socioempathic differences among mentally superior, mentally typical and men- tally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 1956, 23, 114-119. Idittelbach, F. G., and Moore, J. W. Intermarriage of Mexican—Americans. Mexican—American Study Project, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966. biittelbach, F. G. The burden of poverty. Mexican— American Study Project, University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. Idoore, J. W., and Mittelbach, F. G. Residential segre- gation in the urban Southwest. Mexican-American Study Project, University of California, 1966. VRDreno, J. L. Who shall survive (1st Ed). Washington, D. . Nervous and Rental Disorders Publishing C : Company, 1934. “hbustafa, A. T., and Weiss, G. Health status and practices of Mexican-Americans. Mexican-American Study Project, University of California, Los Angeles, 1968. 1Vhikherjee, B. N. Derivations of likelihood—-ratio tests for Guttman quasisimplex covariance structures. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 97-123. (foice of Evaluation Services. Item Analysis program. Michigan State University, 1965. Olshansky, S., and Schonfield, J. Parental perceptions of the mental status of graduates of special classes. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3, 5, 16-20. 152 Osgood, C. E., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, A2-55. Osgood, C E., Suci, 3. J., and Tannenbaum, P. H. The rement of meaning. Urbana: University of 11 'nois Press, 1957. m tam PU)- c Pack, J. R., and Stephens, N. B. A study of the relation- ship between the attitudes and behavior of patients and that of their mentally defective child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 839-8AA. Peckham, R. A. Problems in job adjustment of the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1951, 50, AZ8-A53. Phelps, W. R. Attitudes related to the employment of the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 69, 575-535. Polansky, D. Beliefs and opinions concerning mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1901, 66, 12-17. liokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1961. I3omano, O. Donship in a Mexican-American community in Texas. American Anthropologist, 1960, 62, 966-976. flosen, L. Selected aspects in the development of the mother's understanding of her mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1955, 59, 522-528. E{Libel A. J. Conce ts of disease in Mexican-American a p culture. American Anthrppologist, 1960, 62, 795-814. Flubel, A. J. Across the tracks: Mexican-Americans in a Texas city. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1966. Ruble, w. L., and Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic statistics when missing data is involved (The MD-STAT routine. Stat. Series Description No. 6, Agricul- tural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. ' Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., and Rafter, M. E. Calculation of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7, Agricul-' tural Experiment Station, Micnigan State University, 1966. (a) 153 Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., and Rafter, M. E. One way analysis of variance with unequal number of repli- cations permitted (UNEQl routine). Stat. Series Description No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (b) Ruble, W. L., Paulson, S. J., and Rafter, M. E. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance with unequal frequencies permitted in the cell--no interaction effects. (LS routine-~temporary). Stat. Series Description No. 115, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Salkind, I. Changing employers' attitudes toward the psychologically handicapped. Journal of Rehabili- tation, 1962, 28(3), 26-27. Samora, J. and Lamanna, R. A. Mexican-Americans in a mid- west metropolis: A study of East Chicago. Mexican- American Study Project, University of California, Los Angeles, 1967. Saunders, L. Cultural differences and medical care: The case of the Spanish-speaking people of the Southwest. New York: Russel Sage Foundation, 195A. Schonell, F. S., and Watts, F. F. A first survey of the effects of a subnormal child on the family unit. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 61, 210—219. fSchonell, F. J., and Rorke, M. A second survey of the effects of a subnormal child on the family unit. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63, 566—575i ESemmel, M. I. Teacher attitudes and information pertaining to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63, 566-57H. 53ellin, D., and Mulchahay, R. The relationship of an institutional tour upon Opinions about mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, HOB-A12. Simmons, J. S. Social integration of preschool children having hearing problems. Sociology and Social Research, 1955, NO, 99-101. ISA Smith, J. R., and Burst, J. G. The relationship of motor abilities and peer acceptance of mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 81-85. Snyder, R. T. Personality adjustment, self attitudes, and anxiety differences in retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 1966, 71, 33-A1. ESOldwedel, B., and Terril, I. Sociometric aspects of physically handicapped and non-handicapped children in the same elementary school. Exceptional Children, 1957, 23: 371-372) 381-383- EStoddard, R. M. The reaction of parental attitudes and the achievements of severely mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63, 575-595. EStubblefield, M. W. Religion, parents and mental retarda- tion. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3, A, 8—11. ihachman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.) Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Tfidurston, J. R. A procedure for evaluating parental atti- tudes toward the handicapped. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 64, 148-155. TUfiurston, J. R. Attitudes and emotional reactions of parents of institutionalized cerebral palsied, re- tarded patients. American Journal cf Mental Defici- encv, 1960, 65, 227—235. ‘Tsrler, L. E. Tests and measurement. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Ward, J. R., Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (Ed.) Computer applications in the behav- ioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1962. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-hill, 1962. Wint‘nrop, H., and Taylor, H. An inquiry concerning the prevalence of popular misconceptions relating to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1957, 62, 3AA—3A8. 155 Wolf, R. M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (Ed.) International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1967, pp. 109-122. Worchel, T. L., and Worchel, P. The parental concept of the mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65, 782-788. Wright, B. A. Ppysical disability——a psychological approach. New York: harper & Bros., 1960. Zinnes, J. L. Scaling. In P. J. Mussen and M. R. Rosen- ziveig (Ed's.), Annual review of psychology, Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews Inc., 1968, 20, uu7—A78. Eluckerman, M., Oltena, M., and Monashkin, I. The parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenics. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 307-310. EZuk, G. h. The religious factor and the role of guilt in parental acceptance of the retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 6A, l39—147. APPENDICES 156 APPENDIX A STATISTICAL MATERIAL 157 TABLE A.1.--H's, means and standard deviations 1f38 groups by sex. for the four Mexican-American sample Variable Shh BEE ’ ale Female Male Female N ' SD M M SD N M SD N M SD Attitude 1. Stereotype 11 3A 3 39 31 A 17 37 6 33 3A 7 Content 2. Normative ll 37 5 39 3A 5 17 Al 8 33 A0 9. 3. Moral Eval. 11 A2 10 39 AA 6 17 A8 5 33 A7 ' A A. 11:71:,«1thtst1ca1 11 A7 6 3'} Ac"; 6 17 50 A 33 A9 A 5. Feeling ll 5 7 39 A3 6 17 AA 6 33 A2 7 6. Action 11 8 6 39 3A 6 17 A0 6 33 A0 7 7. Total 11 2A2 63 3? 233 1” 17 261 21 33 250 23 Attitude 8. Stereotype 11 A6 is 39 A3 A 17 A7 1 33 A7 10 Intensity 9. normative ll 2 16 34 A0 11 17 A5 8 33 A6 10 10. Moral hval. 11 5 1A 39 A5 9 17 50 7 33 A8 8 11. Hypothetical 11 A0 1A 39 A7 10 17 A9 6 33 A8 9 12 Feeling 11 10 33 SO 11 19 5 8 33 A8 11 3 Action 11 o 11 3) AA 10 17 A6 9 33 A7 11 1A Total 11 1? t1 39 :t7 At 17 287 32 33 28A A1 Value 15 Efficacy-Cont. 11 A 3 A 7A 3 17 2A 3 33 2A 3 16 Efficacy-int. 11 W 7 39 28 A 17 23 A 33 27 A hnowledge17. JR Knowledge 11 17 2 3' 16 3 17 18 3 33 17 3 Contact 15. RP Amount 11 7 l 33 3 1 17 2 1 33 2 l 19 EP Avoid. 11 A l 3? A 1 17 A 1 33 A 1 80 HP Income 11 3 1 3) 3 1 17 1 O 33 1 O 2 h} Alter. 11 A 1 3} A 1 17 1 O 33 1 1 22. HR Amount 11 A 1 39 A 1 17 2 2 33 2 1 23. as Lnioy. 11 A 2 39 u 1 17 A 1 33 5 1 Demogra- 2A. Age 11 1 33 2 l 17 A 1 33 3 1 pnic 2;. Educ. Amount 11 A l 3” A l 17 3 1 33 3 l at. Relig. Imp. 11 5 1 37 A 1 17 A 1 33 A 1 27. Eelig. Adner. 11 5 1 39 A 1 17 A 1 33 A 1 change 28. Self Change 11 3 1 31 2 l 17 2 l 33 2 l Orient. 29 Child Rearing ll 3 1 3A 3 l 17 3 l 33 3 l 30. birth Control 11 2 l 39 3 1 17 2 l 33 3 l 31. Automation 11 3 1 39 3 1 17 3 1 33 3 1 32 Pollt. Lead. 11 3 1 39 3 1 17 3 1 33 3 1 3 Rule Adher. 11 3 l 3) 3 1 17 2 1 33 2 l Educa— 3A. Local Aid 11 3 l 39 3 1 17 3 l 33 3 1 tion 35 Federal Aid 11 3 1 39 3 1' 17 3 1 33 3 1 36. Ed. Planning 11 3 U 39 3 1 17 3 l 33 3 1 159 LST fix—P Groups Totaled Male Female wiale Female Male Female N M so N M so N M so N M so N M so N M so 19 3A 7 31 3A 6 29 35 5 53 33 5 76 35 6 156 33 6 19 35 5 31 36 8 39 33 6 53 3A 6 76 36 6 156 36 7 19 A5 6 31 35 5 29 A3 6 53 A3 6 76 A5 7 156 A5 6 19 A2 9 31 A6 7 29 AA 7 53 AA 7 76 A5 8 156 A6 7 19 39 7 31 39 8 29 A0 7 53 A0 6 76 A2 7 156 A1 7 19 29 5 31 29 7 2 30 6 53 29 7 76 33 7 156 32 8 19 223 22 31 2:9 27 21 225 25 53 223 2A 76 235 27 156 232 25 19 37 7 31 Al 7 29 A2 9 53 A2 8 76 A3 9 156 A3 9 19 38 8 31 A2 10 29 A1 9 53 A3 10 76 A1 9 156 A3 11 19 A5 10 31 A6 8 29 A5 9 53 A7 10 76 A6 10 156 A6 9 19 A5 12 31 5o 6 29 A5 9 53 A8 9 76 A6 10 156 A8 9 19 A5 9 31 A9 11 29 A7 9 53 A7 8 76 A8 9 156 A8 10 19 31 7 31 33 10 29 36 10 53 35 10 76 38 11 156 39 12 19 2A3 39 31 262 5 29 :57 A3 53 261 9 76 263 A6 156 268 A2 19 25 3 31 23 3 2) 2 3 53 3 3 76 2A 3 156 23 3 19 2A A 31 27 5 29 29 5 53 28 A 76 29 5 156 28 A 19 15 2 31 lb 3 29 16 A 53 17 3 76 15 A 156 17 3 19 2 1 31 2 1 29 2 1 52 2‘ 1 76 2 1 155 2 1 19 3 2 31 2 1 29 3 2 53 3 2 76 3 2 156 3 2 19 1 1 31 2 1 29 1 1 53 1 1 76 2 1 156 2 1 19 1 1 31 1 1 29 2 1 53 1 1 76 2 2 156 2 2 19 1 1 31 1 1 29 2 1 53 2 1 76 2 2 152 2 2 19 2 2 31 2 1 28 2 1 A9 2 1 75 3 2 156 3 2 19 3 1 31 3 1 29 3 l 53 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 17 5 O 31 5 l 29 A l 53 A l 76 A 1 155 A l 19 A 1 31 5 1 29 A 1 52 5 1 76 A 1 155 A 1 19 A 1 31 5 1 29 A 1 52 5 1 76 A 1 156 A 1 19 2 1 31 2 1 29 2 1 53 2 2 76 2 1 153 2 1 l9 3 1 31 3 1 29 3 1 50 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 19 3 1 31 3 1 29 3 l 53 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 19 A l 31 3 l 29 3 1 53 3 l 76 3 1 156 3 l 19 3 1 31 3 1 29 2 1 53 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 19 2 1 31 3 1 29 3 1 A6 3 1 76 3 1 1A9 3 1 l9 3 l 31 3 l 29 3 l 51 3 1 76 3 1 15A 3 1 19 3 1 31 3 1 29 3 1 53 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 19 2 1 31 3 1 29 3 53 3 1 76 3 1 156 3 1 160 I am I.III I have I.III ~l-u0 3 fin! Int. 0. MI“ ¢ II I III. 5 III I g Win! '. I ' g. ' ~—.O"1 JI'QI E .I.III .I.uI I.III I.III. 3 E 'IIMII II II II 1.7“ I.III I.In Ian I In I III I m I III I htt- II ' II ' II ° II ° I.III 0.4!, I.III I.III I.III I.In I.II: I.III I.III I.III 7 m1 . I.1 7 I.III I.III .lle «at: II.III I.III I Stunt”. . a. I I I.III I.III I.Isi I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 00.2.0 -I.lII II.III Id" 9 but“. u. a. ll 0| 0. I. II“! Inn I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I III I m I I" I II I In I III I III I In In In.) Dru. II ‘ I. ' I ' II '. II ' II ' u ' ' E III?! I.Iu I.III III). ..III I.III I.III 'm I II I III I III I III I In I III I III I III I III I I” 1: Wm! 'i ' II" I ' ' II ' II ' II ' ' ' I.III 0.0M I.III I.Iu I.III 1,2" I_III I.III I,uI I.III I.III I.III I.III I,III I'M! 0,001 n noun. . II II II I (m3) I.III Inn (m I.III 0.!" «w, u 0.03:. 1.1I2. Lug. I.III I.III I.II7 I.III 0.":. I.III. 0,!" Inn 0,11! In" I.III InI‘I «my I.In I.III u I.III L": 0.07:. I.III 0.": I.III I.III 0.7” 0.709 I.Iv I.III 0,7“ I.III M . , am I.III I.III I.III cm) ‘0 l I" .I “7 T m - I . 7 ' u incur-ant. '-I 'II 'II 'I 'I. 'II 'I."II 'II 'II' II ' I 'II 'II 5 I.III I.III Ian I.III 0.1.7 I.II. I.III I.7Iz I.III I.III 0.733 I.III I.7II I.III D I.I7I -I,III .I.I1I oI.III 0.1" .I,II: .I,III IA" 0.8" I." I.III I.III I.III II Baton—III. I. III II II u II II u h“! I.III I.III I.III 0.14. I.III 0.7” .II0 . .II 0.7” V ‘7 v n g . 0.16:. I.III 0.0:: «an ”11:. 0.06:. 0.10: 0.": 0.08: 0.07:. Mug. 0.": I.II: III’:. «no; 00.!“ m II a I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III Inv I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ”I“ ll .n I Q. I I. l .. I .. I I I I ..'I .. I .. .. '0‘... I I .. luz. I.III OJII I.III l."l®.®ld¥l 0.780 I.III I.III I.Iu I.III I.III up. II In.“ 0.0.:. o0.130. 432:. ol..0:. 0.0,: 4,!“ .I'II: 0.0!: I.In O.l!:. I.Ia:. 0.10:..0'17:. I.II: 4.00: I.III I I I I. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.Iu I.III I.III III” I.III I.III I.III 0.100 I.III I.III h”. a In... t,II7 I.III Lu: 0,." o0,02: 0.00: 0.00: 0.!“ I.III I.II: I.IIIi I.II:I I.II: I.II: .I,III -I,2II 1 1 I x I: 01 0.050 I.III I.III I.III 0.9:. 0.521 I.III I.III I.I1I I.1I7 I.IN I.III 0.807 0.107 11 In: a - f.ll;, 0.07: 0.”; ""3, I.III I.Izz, mu: “"3, chug, I.II:’ I.I1;,.I,II:’ 0.10:, hug, «.32; .IJII 7 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III‘ hm I.III IJII OJ" IJI' I.III I.III I.III I.III 21 lb- ' ‘ mu:7 0.0’:, (1.11:, 0.17:, h“, h"! IA” ”10:, IIIO’:’ I.Ifiz, ”10:, 0.", h." I.3I‘ 0.0.: I.III I.III 0.631 I.III I.III w}. I.III I.Iu I.Igs I.III . I I.III I.Iu u .- ’°' 4,":7 -I.Iai7 I.II: I.III I.I7I I.III I.III 0.01:, 00.00:, 0.05:, I.Iu I.II: I.III I.Iv .I,III I.III I 7 87 I I.III I.III I.III .I ’ n h- .I,III I.III .I,II: «.le -I,III I.III I.III .I,u! -I.III 4,“: .I,ur .I,III I.III .I.m 4.0. 0,010 II I I II I II IIIOT I.III I.III I.IgI I.III I.III I.In I.III I.III I.III 0.0! I.III 2’ hi“ . 12,!” Id}: I.II:. -O.IO:. «“7: 0,00: I.III .I.II:. ".07: 00.“? «.11! «.11: 0.03? “a“: I.III I.II: O u hi“ I.III 0:007 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.In I.III I.IvI I.III I.III I.In I.III I.III loud-ulna. I.IIr “an .I,III I...’: I.II: I.II! I.III .I,Iu I.II:. I.II: 0,". 4,“: I.III I.III 4,1" «.055 I I II :7 I. 0.!“ I.III I.III 0.7M I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III 0.”: I.III .II I.III I.III h... nut-l... 'Ooi’:. '0-07: 4.12:. '0II’:. an“: In on“: 0.“: 0.1,: ht“ 0.!“ -I.I" huz. huh -I.I9:. .I,III II I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.1II I.III I.III IJII I.III 0."! 0.313 I.Ifl 0.!" Ian " “um I.I’:. IIO.:. 0.12:. IIO’:. 0:012. MHz. I.I‘: I.Il’“ "a u an." -III7:. 0.0!: I.I|:. on": 0.“: .I.2II I.In I.III 0.2” I.III 0.41. I.III 0.1.1 I.III I.III I.III hon I.III I.III I.III I.III .. ” mu ”m” 0.00: "I!“ MI: In" In? I.II: h": oI.Il:' 'I.I3:. ".0” «at: -I.IO: Io": -I.Ifl 0.“. I.III I I 5 I.III I.III I.III 0.167 ..III IJII 0.!” 0.7“ In" In." 0.“! OJ“ I.III I.III I.III I.III 3' g Kroc-0m! "17:. L1“. 0.": 0.“: 0.01.. I,II:. 0.17:.al.l0: '38:. 00.05:. .I,II:. .I,II: 0.07:. .I.II: I.III I.III II Inn 0.18? I.III I.II7 I.III I.III I.III I.III In,” I.III I.III 0.". I.III I.III I.III ” I M“ 0.1.: 0,": I.III I.Iu I.III .I,nI I.II: I.II: I.III II.III .I.III I.O|:Il.1l’ I.III I.III h," II I II II II II I I.III I.III 0."! I.III I.III 0.0.1 I.III I.III I.III I.I7I I.III I.III I.III In“ 0.01. 31 rum-.1 W- .1"; -I.IN 4.3.4 441:. «an 0.00:. 4,": "":I I.IO: 00.03:. "“3 I.II: I.III I.III I.III -I.III ”.91...“ h!!! -0;!fl.._l.'|’.. .31.” 01211.116’.” 'I'” -010“ Jail 133‘ 0.9“ 0.0" In!“ I.I7I :3 MW- .O,I’:. 0.00: 0,»; 0.01:. I.II:. I.II:. 0...: I.II:. “,0“ «38:. 0.00:. .I.II: I.III 0.": 0.“: 0...: I .lu. II... .I... .0“, .9... .l... .I.[. .O,.. .I‘“ .I’.‘ .0... .C'.‘ .0... .I.,. ...'C 0.", " “d“ -I,uI 0.“: 0.18:.4Jl: 00.13:. 0,0“. .I,Iu. 0,": I.III 0.14:. I.Il’ 0.": 0.“: 0.": .I.III I.III II I.III I.III I.IIO I.III I.III I.III 0.010 I.III I.III I.III I.I7I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ’5 "“"““ I.II:. mu: 0.!" h": I.III I.III I.iII I.II: I.II:.. 0.00:. no.0".«IOJH I.III 0.00: I.III ,.,.I1 I I I Inn 0."! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.7II I.III I.III I.III ”I“ 1“ “'M «40:. IIII‘:.—¢IIO5:. “03:. Od’:.--OI”‘ -I.II:. OIO’:. ...,:I 0.01:. 0.0‘:. I.I!:. m“; II”: «.0: “an 0'“! I.Ifl OJ“ 0"” I'm _ 4.”! 4ml.—4.Iu__¢.III 4.!!! I.III I.III IJII I.III .I ,mx moat-I mm mm m III-nan II *111’711’1'1' 'I’l"l“l“1”l“ "1 161 TABLE A.2.-~Correlation matrix for the SERl graduate — 3..“ I. 0...! h." 00.“! Q. ..... student sample. 1Special education and rehabilitation workers. I.III I.III 4.001‘ I.III I.III I.III 00.06:, I.III tom I.III I.III 4."! I.III I.III I7 I I 7I I.III I.III I.III , I.In -I.III JAN—M .u.IJI I.I7I I.III I: I7 I7 I. I.III I.III 4.3” I.III I.III I.III I.III II I 7 I7 I.III --I.III I.III 1...?“ nut-ham -I, 9..“ «an 0,003 -I.III I.III II 00‘ II 01 7s I7 0? 13.3.3. 49’“ .o". .I“. .0.“ .0“. ‘0‘”- ‘ anal amt—I.III ~OJO$ 44“-- . II II II I; 79 I7 II II 4.»: -.I.Iu. , -I.Iu I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III mmdmz -.I.I.Il .I,uI I.III .I.III I.III I,II1 II,III I.III II II I 01 I7 II -I. ..I.In.-4.7u I.III I.III I.III.-. 13:1 JIML. “I in; I.III 4,03 I.III IIu I,III .uI..I1I It'llt .I,III 4,": II II I .1 I7 II II II .M I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III . I.III- I.77I I.III I.III 4J1.“ M .I. III I.Iu I.III 4,1.“ “A...“ 5.14:1...wa 4.4,“! II II I: I7 I7 II II II II II -- 4.1a I.Iu I.III I.III I.III nut 44“.. 1.3” AIM II.III I.III «0.2” I.III «.III I.III I.III I.III I.III .I.uI «an «an I.III II II 7 I7 I7 II II I I -m _l.w--.I.uL-I.nL1_ 4.411... .. .1 1 1 I . L 2 II - -I ":5 II.“ I mug. 442:. 441:. I.” mag, nun. MI}, I. I“ . -.I.1u ”‘Qf hum. " I. It. -—JJ¥1—w-~l.”0 I.III. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III M m1 4.81! w “LAW...“ - A-A.!” 44""‘7—07... II II II II I7 II II II II II II II II I.III "4"“ @ JIM. Mu —J.IIL 0.!“ hw- Id“ I.III .. . m- I.III I.III 4.048 I.III -I.III 4A“ «00'0” 4.119 I.III ~44“ 4411-44.31 1.8!! 0.!" M , I III II 0‘ 7; I7 II II II II II II ' 1 I.III Jo!“ I.III I.IIL -I.IIJ I.III WM .IM_ 4.»: «$.88! I.III I.III «I.III I.II! -I.III I.III I .0“ 4.”: 4. u: - I.III - I.III I.Iu» um m 0.3» I I n I II II II II II II I.III. I.III I.III I.II7 I.III I.III 0.!!! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ~qu 14.," 4.0! I! I 3 II? IIJIIaIIII. III- - In .I ”d‘: ~HO:. " I.I': I. O, I.II” III!” I. . II . II. . sunk Mtg. I. .III II. II: dun. I.III I.III I.III I.I’I I.III I.III I.III I.III III‘O I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III- Ian I III I.III -I.II7 -I. II: oI. III I.III 0.1!], -I. III I. II! II 48:. II .IIS 4 I1I oI. III 0. I" I I” I I“ I III II.I7I -‘.I .I. . D .. . I I I .. I .. I 9. .. O C:. D., I 1.4. .I’“ - -.I::. .0.:‘ .0.., 0.1300301 .l::' £I::l! . .I ::. .‘::. ‘I:l'l ' m 1..“ ..,.‘ ..‘3' "I m We mum-um mm " "1"!"1“l"l" *1v1u1" “l”J”[ [”13‘ [» 162 1 Itcnotypo 2 Iomun L”? J '0!“ hIl. .'.::3 ””1! ..m é?» ‘ E I mllOIl '1‘,’ ‘0':" ..’::l U S 5 "‘1‘” 0.107 1111‘ 0.107 ’1‘). 5 I.IxI I.III I.III .1193 Ion! ‘ ”u” u as: 131 1.717 1.717 I.III In} (my 7 Total I.III I.III I.III 0.714! I.III! I.I?! . -c.u7 '1.117 0.0.. I-QS’ 'I-Ol‘ IIISO 'III|! ' “"0“”. - on I11 I11 131 III 1.1171 I.In 1.157 In" I.7II .I - S! -I .7 I II I I .I II 0.1.? II_III I III I Ian-u" ‘H: “ .1.“ :1) :33 '11; 3 ° 3‘ . _ I I. I . I. 7 I.I" I In N “0“: I'd. 0.3:?“ I.I:I’ I II 1.: I III ”I I.II I c I.1I7 1.719 N " I.III 1.11s I 1973 I III I. I1 1.119 .711 1.31 I. III I.7I7 11 limb-Ital In In ‘0! 0.777 I. 71' I. III 0.12? I.7II I.III I 171 1.113 I.III I.III III ‘3 E "‘1“! 11 III In ' . 5 1.1II I.I7I 1.171 1.111 I.III I.III I.III 1.177 1.711 1.771 I no I 11I 1.111 I. II! 1.117 1) Icuoa I11 I11 131 In ' II ' II In I.7II I.I7I I.III @“ (U1 .I ®@ ® «.on 0.111 I.I7I 1.1." I.1II I.I I 1.17I1.111 I.7I7 hm 0.711 1.771 I.III 11 total I13 I): J ’ ..... ..:.. ..... ”$633 4:19 1. 71 I1. 1 . 7 . I I.I 1.11 I. 1.1 I I.I 31!? 1s "near-can. °Iu ' 11 ' '1. 1 31' ‘ "31 “I I I .2va :3) is; ' In 1.111 1.117 1.171 1.117 1.7" 1.111 1.717 1.117 I.III 1.171 a .1." 01.1" _I.IIIa.111. I.III 1.1.1 I. 00:, 1.1 0.700 woao‘ I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II 1I tanner-1.1. I.I 11: 13.111: .1 I In I 1.177 I.III 1.7“ 1.771 I. 1.1 1.111 0.000 . I.III 1.137 I.III I.II! 1477 «.111 I.III oIJOI '0-0’10..023 I.I" 0.0“ -I.Iz7 0.171 I.III I.III 1" I III-1dr 033 I1: III 131 I11 I III III III III II III III III a .II7O I.In I.III I.III I.III I.III 0.0!. I.I" I.III I.97I I.III I.III I.III «.111 .1111 I.III I.III 1.139 I.III I 111 1.1. I .171 I III I .111 1.1.11 I 111 I.III I. I? m: In In . ”I 1.771 1.117 a!» (m, I 11: 1.171 my ® an» 1.111 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.1I7 1.171 4.131 IIJIO .I.I13 OJI‘ I.Iz1 4.011 I.III I.II7 11 n In“ 177 I77 .717 I 122 177 117 I77 177 177 I77 177 177 1.7I1 1.111 I.III (a) 1.110 m. I.III I.III 1.77: I.717 1.751 I.III I.III 1.71! 1.711 3° n "m .I.II7 cunt II.121 -3.II1 -I.III I.I" “JO" 7.0" 'J“ 0.0" km 4.0” M1“ '-"’ "J“ "J" g .111 111 1 .114 III II III III .111 III III III III III E I.III I.III 1.11 1.171 I.I“ (In) 1.7.1 1.179 1.17? II". 1.11! I.III 1.117 I.III I-Iu ’1 " ”W -I.II7 1.131 I. III 1.111‘r 1;.1 Q, I. 117 1.17911 114 I 117 1.172 I.17I I. 1.11 I .179 ®I.17I I.III I,” 9‘15“: II 90‘ In I.III 1.07 I. I I 1.721 I.III I. III I. In I H? I. 177 1.3 1 77 nm‘ -|.I" -1. a1 1.11.1.1011.12 1.!" 1.1791.IH.I.131" 1.1» 1.117 1.711 1.171 I. I:I 0” I10 I” I" I1 I11 I11.) 1m" 016" .1129 .@ w (0. |:Z, a, 9133. b 0- .17 11.0.) ® (0109!? ..::3 1) II IISW co..24 1,.II I.171 1.7I11.711 1.1.1 I.7I7 1.172 I.III I. 1792 .I170 «.112 I. III III“ I. 05:, I72 I72 I7 172 1 722 I22 7.711 1.171 _ 1.17.1 1.171 1.11: (1.113) (I. III) (1.111) (1.11) ‘ 1.1.1 1‘ ‘0‘ 1.121 1.111 6.121 1.111 1.177 1.115 I.III 1.111 1.113 I.III I.III I.III 1.117 1.1711 I_III I17 117 1:7 117 1 171 137 1‘7 117 I17 137 132 . 8 1.177 1.111 1.117 1.711 ® 131;. 1.119 I.III 1.171 1.117 1.110 1.711 1.17- 1.1 6.1:], 15 lane. ”I h.” I yuI 0.090 I.III IL.“ «.21: I.III 0.097 In”! 1.03! I.III 0.022 ...‘,‘ IL"? 0.“. GAO! 117 I! )1 I37 32 In In In I37 I37 1 Inn 1. III 1.110 I-III I.III I.III I.7II I.III 1.771 1.517 I.III 5.11!) 3‘ ~11!“- lllflt- 1.111 I.III I. 111 I.III 1.171 I.III I.I" 1.17: 0.0" I.I" 0.1II 1.117 1.117 I.I)? «.030 LIN I11 0‘. 111 III III 1 III - , III - III 1 1.1I7 I.III I. I11 3.")! I.III I.III (mp 1.171 In)“ mp I.III m1 I.III @ 21 3119“- flh-t- I.III 1.1II 1.171 -I.III 1.111 4.117 I.III 1.11.7 -I.I11 I.III I.I71 I.1II 4.177 I.III -I.II7 1.111 171 171 I7 171 I71 I71 III 171 In In In 171 .11 1.177 (my I.III I.III I.7II 1.11I 1.717 1.111 II7II I.III 1.171 I.III 1.111 I.III CG...i 1' '01! M 1.171 1.131 1.117 I.1I1 1.1a -I.I1I 1.141 .1 110 4.071 0.074 I.III 1.17 «.11 .11 1. 3171‘. I17 I 137 II III 137 117 I17 I37 137 137 137 0‘2 .03.. 1") .I11’ .0'2' .l‘.. .I", .1.., '0’.‘ .I'.’ '1’,“ 30". .I‘.‘ 2’ mu III-'18! 1.111 1.111 1.1171:117 I.III I.III 1.117 1.117 «.117 1.117 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 1.1» In II; II; II I71 I71 I11 I31 I31 I3 I31 I1, 8 1.011 I.II7 up (up I.III 1.711 (m) 1.2" 1.717 1.117 1.111 1.771 1.711 I.1II 1.771 1.." u "‘ um Cami 0.1:: I.I." I.I:z I.III -I.II’ .I,III 0.09! I.IIJ I.III I.III 0.11! I.I" «.080 I.III I.I" I.III I 0!. ,I 1 II 03' I I" IS. I I I 1.171 I.III 1.771 (up I.III 1.317 I.III 1.119 I.III 1.177 1.7.11 .91 J1 III-Ian I II! I .121 I.III -.III I.III I.III I.III 0.”. I.III I.III I.III I.II’ I.II1 I.III I.1II I 1:1 037 137 II 137 7 - I "I I.III I.1II I.III I.I“ I.III 1.171 MI. ’1 7.1111ch w- 1.171 «.171 4.171 1.171 1.117 1.117 1.171 .1 111 .1.117 «.111 .I,III .1.117 I 171 .1.111 1 III . ”I III III III III III III III III III III III III 1.117 I.III I.III I.III 1.171 1.399 1.111 1.111 I.III 1.1» 1.117 1.114 1.70 (1.172: 1.11 1: n1- Mhu. .1.117 1.117 1.177 I.III 1.111 I.III I.III 1.111 I.III 1.171 1.117 1.1II I.III 1.117 I.III I 1.5 In In I7I 121 In III III III I I ' I.III 1.77I I.III 1.771 1.1.: I.II7 1.771 I.II7 I.III 1.111 1d. 1‘ hood I“ -I III II.I17 1.111 0.1" I.III -I.I77 I.III 1.11? I.I" I.17! 0,123 1.1" II.17I I.117 I.III I 111 177 I 7 7 I17 I77 7 ' g 1.111 I.II7 1.11 .11 I.III 1.177 I.III '1... 1.111 )3 ”dual MI! «.017 l...” I'm: I.III I.III II.I72 I.III I.III I.III I.III O.|1I 0.0.1 1.0.“! 0.“! OJ?! I.III , I" In I7I III III III 7I 17 I In 171 O). I.I7I I.II (m! Id“ In" L”: I.III I.In I.III 0.9" 0.01. I.III I.7II I.II7 I." II M. Inn-III -I I17 ”.1“ I 172 I.I" -I 110 -I 10 -I 117 I I" I II I 177 -I In I ‘ 0| I” I I 3 I a ' I! . I71 III ' III ' 0;. ' "I ' ' I" ' III ' "I h :u ' “I ":71 0.0.3. " :71 (m) 1.711 I.III 1.797 I.III 1.111 1.111 1.7" I.III 1.101 1.014 1.117 I.III I.III 0.1. W Arum con-an Afllm Inn-III!" m1- m*°’°° 1 a [I [I I I 1 I I I I! 111 111 In In T11 17 l u 163 'TABLE A.3. —-Co rrelat ion matrix for the M.S.U. sophomore education student sample. WIS: 16.. variable lie! for coupler. an... Photo roduc‘d Iza- ca-putor print-out. alatatwotauon x Corral-t ion maple 5x10 Slqnxtlcancu level 'I.02I 6’2 I.III I.III -I,tII I2: 3.007 I.III 0.079 -I.III III as: JSl I.III I.III I.III I III I III I .17 I.III I: “7 I III I In 633%, I III I 510 I. III I 166 0.103 I.III I.Iu (Lb @119 I. IIIz I.2:I I.III 0.115 I.III 9.370 I. 3:7 6% {3a I.Igb (1:3) (0%“ 'I-III I-OII I- II! I-III 'I- 029 I.III I-029 022 39‘ II: III I22 ) I.Izz ® IIMJ I.III I.III 0.010 I.III 1.!09 -i.I7I I.III -I.I72 «.00: —I. III I 0323.11” 2 ’2 39 I 2 I I , ) ‘1-606) I.III I.III I.III 0.:30 I 017 I 209 .009 1.053 -I.010 I.III -I.IJI I.III .I,IoI I.II7 oI,I7J I I32 III III . II: 9| m III III 30 I I.III I.II’ m .61. I.III I.III I.I , I.III I In 3.9.1 _|.I70 I_ux .IJII I.IZI .I,In I.III .I,III I,I7I 0,0)! - I" , III In 617 I“ I: I2 . . I )‘OJII Inn 9.“: I.IzI I.III IIISI I.III 621% 1.121 0,030 I.III I.III I.III -I.III I."I§ -I.°I’ I.III -I.ozn -I.a7? on on - - III so: "I $72 on 630 no I.III I.III .nn I.I:I I.III I.III I.III I.II ..III I.III -).II2 0.025 0.050 -I.III -I.I24 I.III I.III “.0“ 0.0" -I.III -I.II2 0.150 In In In ”I II: III 631 I? u 9..» 0.5.” [-210 I-In I.III I.III m!) I.III I.III, I.III .ur, .om I.I?! I.III 0.”! -I.II7 -I.I2I I.III I.III 0.0:? I.I!Io -I.uI -I. m 0.127 0.! us . - . III In a 61130 I.II’ I.I:S .3: 0;!” .339. I.I” b@)%@ (4.223 ;,nIa I III I I79 .I. .I;: -I .I2% I.III I I:Iz I, II! I II! I, III II::’ I I.I:a I.III I,::I I In I 9 2 MI . 5 {man} I.III, I.III 0.019 I.III I.III (I.I I9 I.III I.III I.II H.014; 6,035 oI,III 4,." 0...! 0...! 4,0” I 023° I I12 4,120 .I 132 I III‘ I.III 0.0.}? I.Iu I! I?! 620 3! 9'0 617 521 029 6?. 0‘0 I.III I.III I.IJ! 0.1:! I.III I.III I.III I.IIZ IJII I.III; I.II_ 0.550 ldI! I.III 1.5I7 1.340 I.III I.IzI -I,III I II I.III I I", I III III -I II; .I III I 109 I 10; I III I.III LBJ!- IM III III III 579 In In «70 I.III I.III I.I).O I.III I 027 0.271 I. I" I III I.III I.III I. 0: I.III. @mb 9.20: I.III I.III 3,05! O,II| .I,II1 I.o.l .o.oJI .I,o)I 'O,°O° I.III 0.055 -I,oso I,on: I.III 9.113 I.III 3.12A Ilsa] 077 all 01' 9) 570 6!! 919 627 I” 627 677 020 - 7 $75 e?I ) H.090 I.III I.Iu I.III I.I" I.In I.III I.III ® I.III I.III I.III 0.135 I.III m I.Iax 9.70.1 I.IOJ -I.I1I -O.II‘ I.In -I.III -I.III 0.0" “.011 0.029 4.02: dd" 'J" “.119 0.0“ 0-10‘ 1.1m 4-016 I.I...» 7 I 1 50 2 ’0 I I“ h I I19 19 J 02. 20 42.1“ In 6;, z' mu I.III I.I:I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 0.007 0:620 (I.III! I.IIJ onus Cb I.III (0.613 and? -I,Ixo -I.I:I -I,III I.IU -I,III 3.05‘ -I.II’ I.III -I.I21 I.III I.III I.III I.III I :29 -1_.;.)I I...“ 3.72; 9.11’ 6’4 MI on Is 9 I In I: I I I on 1 17 a . 2 III 623 623 In 6,2 l _ N R.,Sl I.III I.III ..I.I I.III 0.9.1 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I?! I.III I.III InII’ 0.927 I.I13 I.III n.5u5 (5????) W mm WIXC cane: OIImATXW EDUCATXOII IOGI _— _L n "Lulmlnbln "J" 1« 1., =-1» 1» I» M» .. I ,, m-u- 30200 1614 l “or-typo 7 l Its-tive .J‘ I.III I.III 3 ”I but. I.III I.III I.III I thfll .097. II°.9 .09.. .I"‘ 5 lulu. 9 9” 3.19? I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I Anton "I 3%! I" I.III I.III I.III I.’II I.III I.III 1 foul H.177 I.III I. . - I .III . I l keratin In In In In I.III I.III I.III I.III on.07! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II'I I.III 9 “It" 9" 9’5 9" I.III I.In I.27I .I,III I III I.IIV I ,III I In I.II! I.III I.III I_III II I: um: um. I: III III In I: u I.III I. III I III .II w E .I'III I In I III I .III I In 0.02! I.I!I I.III I.III I.III II WIuI I III III III III III III .- I. In I.III I.III I. In I.III I. III I” 0’ .I.III I.III I. I" I III I. III I. III I. II I. “I I.“ MIN 11 [0011‘ 928 979 9? I.III I.III I. on (w W I.III I” I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.In I.II'I I. III I.III I.III I. III I.III 1! hue- ,3 .I,I I.III I.III I.III 0.1" 0.3” I_2II I.III 0.770 I.III I.III I.III I.III I III II ~ «In . I.III I.III I.III I. I7 I.I I.III I.In I.IIZ I.III I.III I.II I.I7I I.III I.III II nun-yuan. III III III III I III III I.III I.III I.III I.III “I w 0.109 I.I" gm «.1 I. I.III I.I)y I.I". I. I.III I.III I.II’ I.III I.III I.III 0.527 I.I97 I.III [.881 II > Jimmy-.1... 923 In In III III 9" ”I . I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.Iu . I I.II .II . II I.III I.III «.II. -I III I III -I III «.III «.II: «.II: .I.III -I.II7 «.II! I.III I.III -I.III -I.III I.III I.III n In III-I.III III 9! III III III III III III 92) III III In am i i I.III I. In I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.Iv I.II’ . I.III I.III I.II. 7,": I I I . II I.I I I . a II H II; «I ' III III ' III III ' ' ' III I.III I.III ® ® ® ® I. II? I.III I.I” I.III I.III ¢® h". '9 I.III .I III I III I III .I. III I III I III .I III I III I III I III I.III I I III I In -I III 1’ "W III II III III "I "I ' III III ' II ' III ' ' III III ' III ' ' III. ' III I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.III IJI’ I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III II I be... .I,I2’ I III I.III I.III I.III I.22I I.I‘II .I,III oI,I2! I.III 0,037 0,007 I,27I 0.14? I.III I.III a 200 III 2" I "I III III III 2“ ' E Io"? I In 0.2!. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.2I7 , 1; run: .I.I7I 4..” -I.III I.III '..O! 0.1.? I.III I.In I.III I.III 9,09. I.III I.I I.III I.III I.III I“ III I“ III III III I“ I“ III I. .0. GI I.III 0.777 I.III I.III I.III .II I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III , 23 III-III .0.IOI I.I)? I.III I.III I.III 0,217 |.|II I II! I.I" I.I" 0,091 I.III 0,222 I.III 0.090 I.III III I6. 46. A. . I“ III 460 III III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.27I I.III @¢ n: 13 III!" .I,III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I" I.III I,III I.III I,III 0.26! I,22I I.III I.III I III 0 I90 III 0 I I" I I 1‘ ... -I.III I.IzI I.III -I.III I.III I.III I In I I" I .III I.III I.Iv I.III I.III 9.1IJ I.III I.III In In I 7 I 7 , u I.III I.Iv @ I.III @‘ I. III @ 0.930 d9®‘ 1’ l“- H -I.III vI.IIi I.III I.II’ I.III I.III I.III .I.III «.III I.I" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III II; II: II II III II: II: II: III III II: III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III .I,’. I.I?I I.III I.III I.III I.III on 1‘ fills“- W- -I.I2I I.III I.III I.III oI.III I.III I.III 0.0!, I.III I.I)? -I.III I.III I.III I.III .I.III I.III In III III III III ”I III III III III III III III III III In I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.7I2 I.9I’ I.Iv I.III 0.!" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III Ins. 11 I...” n... -I.I7I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III -I.III I II II I.III I.III I.III I.III III 920 ”I 9’0 III III ”I III ”I III 9" - I.III I.III . I.III I.III I.III I.III . I. 9“ I.III I.m I. III I.III I.III ” “17““ I.Ia. I.III I.I' I.IJI I.I’I I.III I.III o..ItI v‘IIOI, I.II° -I.III -I.II' I.II’ I.III I.III I.III gt. 9,. 9 9’. ,1. 9,. ’ 9 5:. 5.. ,,. 9'. g’. ,N ". ,1. I.III 3.779 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. III I.III I. III I.III I.III 1’ N“ "m'I -I.III I.III I.III I.III -I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.Iu In ”I In III III I: In III ~ - III - III 5 I.III 3.731 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I" 4111;. @ I.III ‘ I.III ’° W“ °"'"" -I.III «.III I.III «.III -I.III -I.III -I.III I.III I.III I.I" I.III I.III I.III I.I I.III III III III I III I I I III III III I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III Io?" IIIN I.III IIHI I.ITI I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ’1 Imm- .I.III I.III I.III I.III «.II! 4,». .I.III I.III I.III I.III I III I.III -I.III I.III I.III I.I). I I :0 III III III III III III III 51 III III I.III I. II I.III I.II’ I.III I.III I.III I.I" I.III I.I79 I.III I.III I.III ’3 MIHII1W~ .I III .I. In I.III. .I.III I. I" «.II. I.III I.III I. III I.III I.I7I I.» I. II. I.III I.III I.II. 9:? II? I17 517 917 In In I" In In In In In In In In I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III Inn I.III I.III I.III 1’ II" W- oI, III «I,» I.III I.I?) I.III I.III I.III I.III I III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III III III III III 9" ”I III III III III 74.3“ —I.I§ I.III I.III mar I.III I.I‘9 I.III I.III SI um “4 .I_III 00W .43": J III I.I" I.III I.III .I III I.III I I.III I.III I.III III ”I III III III I I an“ ”I.III -I.III . I.III I. III I.III I. II ’5 “It“ I“ I III 4 I .M. II I III I III I III I III I III I III I .II I III I III I 097 I III ' III ' III ' III III ' II. ' II. ’ ' m ' III ' ' ' I I ' ' I.III v...” 4.": I.III I.III I.I" I.III I.Iu I.III I.III 3‘ II- M -I “I - «I. , .I I“ *0 I -I. III -I III -I III I I I I II I I I I III I I -I III I I I. III II ' III .33 ' III ' 9" III ' III ' III ' ' $93 ' ' III ' III ' III ' III III ”.II: I‘m-4M... ."I I. III I.III I.III I.I" . I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III man-mI Inm- cum m I'll-m m III‘IIIlIIIlI IIOLNIHIIIFUIM IIIII “In. 165 TABLE A. U. --Corre1ation matrix for the Belize primary teacher sample. an 909 90999 9.999 -I.III 999 II "9 9 I999. 9I 999 '9I 999' 909 III I 9.)” I. "9 8.099 0.999 9 .999 I. 939 909 9 MOO 9.999 I.999 9.??? 09.909 9.99! 9.999 I“ I” 9I999 9I199 909” 9o... 99". 9I999 9I99' .9... 99‘ 9'9 I.I” I.III .I.III I.I?I I.III I.III I.III I99 I. IIII II’I I.II II II III I“. I.“ um» :fifiw @ .¢:9I:¢9'9 999 .m ... . .u n....... '§39"” III III III III I- III I. "I II,” I .II! I. II? I- III I. III II.“ I. III I. III I. III -I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III II III III III III III a I. III I. m I.III I .III I.III I.III I II .III II I.III II .I.II III -I.III II IIII “:9" 4' :II 2 " 'I.II III “’ I: :99 ' III ’ II ' III I.III I. III I. III In III I. III I. III I .III I. III I. III I.III I I.III 09.999 -I.III I.III 9.9" I.III I.III II.I::. I.III I.II! I.I" II I III III II I III II I I 9I 9I999 9I99’ 90999 9I’I9 9I9t9 I9999 9. 999 99,99 9I999 I . I I .I I .I -I . III I II '"fl.‘”%.'"” 'wn.*wI -~u.-':. h. I «r. ° . 'a "a. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. III I.III I.III I. III I. III I.III I.III 9 .99 I 09 I99 I. «a. «- .Iu. I.II" I. "“1 «.II! I.II” I.Ia . I. .II“ I.I”I I. a“. '9“ ' I. 9% III I. III I. III I. III I. III 9.9:. I .III I.III I.III I.III I. III I.II I I 9. I I.III IIII I I.II IIII @mu I.I 0.0” I”. .I..I2”IIII II”. III I.III I.II Jr. 9“ I.III I. III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. "I I.III I. III I. 799 99:. 0.03. 9.997 I.III I.III’IJII I.II IIII IIII.I.III “w”, ému III 999.9 (mt. .979 Iu‘g 9o .9” 'mm m (M 9099’ 9". '9. 9:... 9' 999 O9. 999 9.9“ 9. 99’ 9 .999. 9. 999 9 9:9. 9.199 9 .981 9.9 9. I9:9' ’9. 997 919 9IMI’9 910 999 919 919 «9921:; .. <39... «39¢ $9.; .Mb ' ” ' <flpdfi» "‘qfip I I. III I.III I. III I.III I.III I.III I.I” I.III I.III I.III I.I I.III I. III I I! II II I I I n I I. III '9. III I. III I.I . I. III 0.9”. I. I9". hou‘ II...“ I. 0.9.. . w, a”. . .Iu. «.II. n. .II“ .I’" I. ’u a, I II." .3» III I.III I. III I. III I .III I.III I.III I.III I.III .IJII I.III I.III I. III I. III IJII I.III ...u m ""1 ”fial .1. "17%" '7'?! ”19'1” 166 l Ilomtm 1 hunt“. to,” 3 bro] lulu-u” 0.19‘ L92! u ' an“ 6 manual ".uv' tut Kan so an! s ".11.. mm: ‘.h? 5:139 0.101 H In I 9° 0.4" LI" “no 3.905 I kucn '.nI I’jor .S.nn I.I-2 -:..u, I q I. 9“ I 9..“ 5”"; I.I" I.I): 7 and I’JII 4.71. ‘30? L7" 9.53% v.20 ! ‘ : $fl «ED mu! 0 Ilurwtm un- %.\on LI” I.II? L.os- 0.154 n.III - «a u I ..vp 0.,” o Jon-u" v.7): Lin I.Iu h". I.Iza “.9” inn-'a- I.III so In I " Ia ‘0 “an inn 9.”! ..:.I 0.51. lo I...“ ”In“... f.n.' 6);» 7M"? I.I” v.62, 0.091! it.”- -.’u 9.“: 1 t: It. 99 I 59 um 5.17: -.IN 0.7” QED u mun“; g". SJ" 3:"- nus -0.-v QJ“ 6,“, I.II? 0.5“ I.I" “ " On. 1 10 mu m db v.0" 0.2M 11 tutu. .L,I« Lu. 3,43: IJM 0.19! ..:.... «.474 I.I)! 0.5“ 0.72. In” 15 a up 'I 90 I O 5 Q0 10 0.,” In" 0.4.4 :1 nu.- gnu Ln- 3;u7 5.31! out"? 0.7" I.I” a?” 0.10! 9.," I.I” I.Iu I. I; sq I. I 9') I 9 R,Il! 6.313 MI“ ...:,I 0.909 0.2" 9.1” n m1 5.137 5.334 in" Lao! huh v.2" «.II. I.II! 5.70? 0.'l' ...l‘ LN" 0.90? g o o In 5D - ‘I I , an:- uunc 5.0g? 13 "(‘“g,--~t‘ gn- idiu 3.934» 3,”? 0.9“ flu"): an), m“! ”.‘19 0.3“ 0.3" 0.!“ ..106 0.48. s. q I I 5n ‘0 ‘ H nun 5.“! I.I" 9.") I.I” man 0.”? 0.1” 1. "“Wm. L154 9.1;! 5:"? L)" -u.n’ ".007 0.70 I.I” OHIO MI" MN” .200 0.001 MIN MIC! 90 In 9| I WA 0 5. v.27, 5,‘2? 10.0" I.IaI I.I” I.I” DJ“ 11 5.1 r. 79 I.I" 3.3 a b In I.III -n n” I.II, I H0 I 000 MN. I I" a H! 0 HI I.II? I ‘4. .‘ Ma ' "‘ ’ g u ' ' - - ' q 1 ' so ' so Io ' In ' an ' I. so -' u ' -. «up QED «up Qum- an" em. . n.79‘ mu- I.Iu a..." nun 0.4" ..:n 1.”. ...w “ " """ «gm ._... an. 9,901- ....I 11.!” mm was» -a.w «no 4.197 an" 0.92: 4.194 c..." . 3.. so In In 90 In In 0 ‘3 I 9 s; ...n 5.7:; nor 3."! “on anu- . 7 can In“ nun 0.113 I.”- 0.010 5..” u u be“ .v ..r 3.5.1, 32934 13301 0.1.. «.09: 0.1M I.Iu? ”.10‘ 0.0." 0.,3‘ IL”? I...“ 0.0.9 ”JOE . 3.. I a an M n I so In Io Io '. so 90 9| .3 ml” 5.0," 9,091 9.!” Lu? 0.?“ mus 0.9" 0.1“ "HI! 0.9" 0.9" 0.9.1 0.07! 0."! '89? 20 I? [limo an”: .inon .i_uI -‘..na «an: «.070 o'.’l‘ --.n~ ”.0" Hum J.," ”.770 «an ...:" ...:“ .. ”5. ‘L g" .f: In a ‘0 59 ‘3 ‘0 5 ’0 s. g. I“ nuo? imam a.“ I.I:s 0.‘Iol n.u-‘ 9.»? 9.6“ l‘.‘1‘ 1mm I.I» mm I.I" nan 21 I? “1" Zn- ~_ioé illu- l.1II Lu» nun 0.?“ M‘" ”J” ”J" '-"' '-'°7 '-"’ 0"" "J” '-"" I: In '» N In 5!: I *0 - ”a H 1 9 9O 9 H a.“ I.Iu' a I.IoI on" «.35, ® «‘3‘ I.III o."- -.eu no” I.I” p.070 .35, 12 II '" ” ,vn .qguv 3;." «Lu? 0.6" 4.1): an.“ “an on...“ «.030 0.1” J.,"! 4.”! 4.". JJ” .~.-7. {a [a no u 9“ (I; 90 9 Q R 9 It 0.‘0‘ ”.0" 0.”? 0.”! 0.731 9.!“ “A“ 0.9“ 032! 0.,“ 0.." 1.90 OJ" 0.!“ 9.”: u n M” 4,“: #3:: ins: Ln? 4.327 In?“ any: n.12I 0.007 3.3“ 0.2" .nwu 0.”! 0.10 4.0“ '.‘0' :. n In In I In so Io I o u .9 n_-o-. L33" a)“ 0.22? I.I“ 0."? ".059 H.790 ”.7" 0.!” 0.?" 0."! '."I K k. .‘x- 5..” ”L129 Man amaI 01.?” Lao: at“ Mr?“ ".0“ «.010 0.039 0.1“ Mon «.00 u...“- ' I: a I n In 50 So 90 II. 9. 1 Q t. 6.3m «nu 0.002 0.‘5! Law an" 9.10? I.I" 0.92. Laos 9."? 0.4" 0.003 h”. nu 2’ "“' ""'“ unzo 1..» {max nun a.au -n.m mu m” mu mm 0..“ In” «.00 man In” ...¢, . ‘ #0 a a V 19 50 90 ‘ ‘S I.I)? a?" 0.‘0I 3.3" 0.0.9 0.7“ on“ 9.?" 0..” 0.1.1 0.7!! $.29! 0.77! 0.30 0.109 p_.,. " unus- h’"’ '.n.’ dist SJ" 0.”? u.bl" «.Ira M1- -.'-.u 0.12» «.II: n."- «JH 0.190 0.002 «.101 ...“g no I: so 5 I. In In 9 I 9 I 2. . I.I." iJu r.In I.I“ can I.In I.I" 0.7?I 0.!” 0.7:. on” 9.!” 0.276 0.5“ I. u “3.. 21 ”nu" "um“. ".Iu ulna? Finn 0.307 I.III 0.97: I.IH .~.nu 0.1:! «.051 no“ 4.910 0.190 0.00! «.107 “o... In In In N In In I so so I. I so 90 9| 0 7. Mn"- M'?’ “J” h... 0.703 ”.60‘ “J” 0.7" 0."! G.,}! 0.7!. 0.2.9 0.216 0.00‘ I. I! a..." u "" “m“ -' .H’ -i.‘o- int, ...:” «an «no» “men men «.196 mu» mu -o.u' 0.2.? «an L.” v...” M: . no In I In S: 50 ’0 ‘0 II 9 9 90 I I; 0,-0‘ an): 9.?” Law «an mun L”! 0.10: DJ}! 0.!00 0.707 0.140 I...‘ 0.7“ o_o.~ 19 mu Int“; '."7' “‘5‘- 3;.3‘ g.‘.3 ..959 ..g,g h.‘7q A."l 0.10! 00.0.9 ...llO 0.02! 0.1" .|..‘ 00.0... n'.’34 I .,. x. I I u 9 9 s 1 $0 In '.-51 M974 LI:- 3.170 LIO- 5.496 D.,}, IJH 0.19! 0.709 0.700 0.00! 0.39, 0.90. 0.“. .. '9 ’° "m “m“ ’.n- «,m :.m‘ .a.nu ...:" ...:“ Jam not. 0.1!? can «an ...u: “.1” 4.". OJ" -'.u' so . I 9 9' I 9 I I I .. ‘.'D19 1.09, 0.9" I.I” 0."! on" mug IJM nun 0.!!! ..no 0.", 0.9“ 0.”! nm «.m- Il Iva-W’- fl...” J.,.z' .5;.,~ .fiJ“ ...:” “no“ ...399 ...:" 0.10 '0.‘S7 nus «.II! 00.021 «.080 I..." I.I:- 53 . I" 1|, I ,0 , 9 ‘ ‘3 I.I" H.357 I.I” 0.307 0.407 0.9" 0.1“ nun 0.!“ nan 0.»: 9.": 0.0" I.I" I.III ...u ’1 "“m“ M“ -: .w -'.-:I ..:.-m an“ 9.05‘ -n.nn awn mm 0.10! «an «Jun 0.": on". o."- 0.”. 9,. I _ In I 9 I In I so So In so 9' 90 so ' q. I.Ih an: I.I" 5.791 I.I-u I.“- 0.1“ 9.779 Id” on" Lon 0.705 0.090 I.I" q...- ” bl- III-r.“ .3": 6993, r..." 0.2!; 0.0" «.07: vi.”- can 0.!" 0.9" ..:.. 0.0.: 0.": I.C7' ..n, ._,., O - fl ‘ Q . . , . . nu; ., on 0.739 Man 0."! 16 local A“ .. .IH .13..- .33" .Q.|JC ..:.. M-Ufi in“ «,0: «.04: 3.0" 0.". ..u! 0.3.9 0.!“ 9,“. ...y K' * ‘ 1 a so I.I!“ LI" an.- .."0 I.,9‘ R,MQ 0.0" 0.": «.In 0.3" L"! 0.9“ 0.00 ...s. ” "“"l “‘ one-v Inca ism ohu“ mm man «um mu mm 0.91! can 0.09! «.uu 0.": a..." . J.. 5' ' ‘C 9 'h “a 9 ’ 1| I. 9 II 9| 1. I.I?! nan 0.070 on” 0.9" 0.07: 1.0.1 0.0" 0,9“ LAM 0,“! 0.0” 0.0” nu- ). u. flu-h. w...“ “u!!! ‘5‘.“- p.396 ...:" 0,1“ .hfiua «.50! 0.1” cu."- 4...: {0.0" o...” uh“! 0."! 1,“: I: ‘ In. In I In I In 9 I I s s I. “.M' ML'M 1.’" uJO’ 0."! 0.9” 0.?“ 0.339 0..” DJ" 0.9!. 0.0" 0.98! 0.0!! a...“ i ' WI our!!! Arman Inn-n1 an. “nun-In 1 a , . s I 1 I a to u u u u u u -..n. .. -____ ‘—_. TABLE A.5.—-Correlation SER 167 sample. Tatrix for the Mexican-American ..— v.97} 'a in” l {m_h“ Special education and ‘3 '55 '1 III a? .. rehabilitation workers. .I.'.gn -3.Iv7 h.’2.‘ u.) 1;. so In)? I.IOI MM. u‘.ig; .‘_Pul. l.|"° 0,670 r: n; 50 '0 €31: “no 9..” a...” “”23; ...93. p.995 Lu, In?” I3 I: '0 ‘ N.I,Q I_1.V ".177 .'.1'4'v Q.‘n‘ 0,311 QJQQ 0.33' .-.,nI m5 In In I ,‘A; “.1" "-°“ QED ..Iar ..i,r.-n.~,1u -.:.;Jv 0.0.. 4,.“ 9,92‘ . In it: Ia In In 50 “.u‘ no” (.HH l,’9’ 0.1” nan 3.109 ;_.9: :37, .s,1os n.u-. «.17: mJn ..:.qu 0.237 p‘ x 93 In In I. 50 ‘I ‘.-'n 0.1" (.24? on.- fl.’3" «an In"! 0.901 .~..-or. Jun nun awn 0.20’ «um an! -"-N‘ "*J“ m: I 9: In I, I 90 50 in." ~._1n , I.I“ 0J3. Pun n_§}9 9.12! 0.09! “.50" 53‘»? 0.19’ 3.93! (3.2-7 -_¢.u '.’!5 4.9.3 «.35: 1,." 6' no In In “a 0 ’ ‘0 ',.I..\ ".'161 c.2ou 0,13! 0,119 9,121' NJ” (MIN .33“ Sgu- In“ -:.u- 0.?“ 1.30 n.0, “.313 'PJH ”.MI MN! ., . no 0 so so I an h.\J7 ..;,Q f,.25 I...‘ ..," C.,l,‘ an!» -.'-m 4.?" -$.ZM '-.H' “.107 «'IJ" "J" ‘C-"3 “h”, “h“? “J” ‘3 g 5 I. I" (a o ' 9. ’0 90 §.;.°\ §.q.fl 5,07? $.10, 0.50! 0,!51 0.550 0.76‘ ..AI, 9.5.2 ...:, .3..,‘ _;.501 info: 0.2“ 5.”. “.0” -"~.103 oo,In 4.1" 0.12: L!" an". I.I” -.' d. In In I;_ 50 O 5 90_ 3.913 11.5.0 4..” 5.1““ o.Io\ l.409 5.1“ I.I" (2.!!! 0.941 0.“: .~.’~.- 3,1“ J.," v...“ «New new 00.1,, «.10! «.209 ...:” ...ev .II...’ 0.1!! LI“ ‘2 s I I: In I 9 II 0 5.:7, ...:.“ 5.199 g.lgq 0.0!, 5.... 9,": 0.0“ 0,." 9.9" 0.“! 0.320 0.3“ in, .I,nao 0.3;? --.n~ 0,110 J.,-7‘ «.141 0.1” «.920 0.321- a.n! 0."! 0.0:? 0.“. .‘I' ‘i’ q. 9. g. In It) 90 1 'fl ‘9 9 90 5. 9| “ tui ans" a..." “a" (.43: 9,". 0.32:: on» 9.!" v.3“ 9.!“ 0.997 I.III 0.9" .i.i1s 3.7“ 4.050 “1.113 p.217 -~.«:‘ ”.17“ ...N’ I.I” ..ISI I.I" 0.7" 4-0“ 0.!“ -’.‘0’ I t-i 90 I. In so 30 Io In I .. n“, 5,." 0.450 L.,; man can, 42;} L799 9.7.5 on“ o.u- 0.9.9 4..” 5‘”. JAG! “,1“ “.625 -qpu “.200 0.203 n."- .0.97I 4.77! no.0” 0.!“ 4."! '3’“ . s. 1 a; s Ia I ~ go o ‘.‘09 ._.u ..:.! 0,"? 5.034 n_I7I a...) 0.!“ 3.9” {HID 0.?” 0.0" Id“ "4'” .-s.-'m Aha-I um" 4.1“ 0.129 .1.12c «an 9.1" 0.0“ 0.,“ Lu! -o.:u I.I” 6.196 “.06“ -‘.‘o- ‘3“ ”.1“ a5 9 I In Io so 5 I In 9 I In 9 I a so I on“ 5.!" In“ L!“ 3."? 0."? 0.0! 0.“! IJIM 8.070 0.“! 0.72! 0.?" 0.“!- "-7G‘ “”19 .631: 3.", .‘hl't I.Iuo no“ .éuloI m2. 0.0" 0.99! 0.,“ 0.70! 8.07! ”.124 0.!” -'.““ """' "H?" 9"" . 9° . q a In In I I I 9 I I I o 9 5 ‘ . I.In 5.030 0.73‘ and «.907 5.10 0.03? 0.!“ on“ 0.1" 0.901 0.3" 0.”! "-'I' 'c‘" “J" “IL m Dmc ml main“ 1 mu“ 17 u I. 10 21 11 1) IA 13 26 11 u I. x If )1 i )1 fl 3! macaw-s I \UIW I.I’I I when. IJII Ln" 3 but Ital-II- I.III I.III 6.133 5.1». I Ii II I mun-n I . III I. III I . III I.”I IIIII 5.”! “.III I II I hang I.III I.III I.III I.III 3.". Juan I.III I.3II 4 I I am- I.Iu L?“ I.I" I.III I.79IV LII! I.II? 0.5“ I.III Q 1 mu d]: dip 4:31p dip I'm"- -‘.‘II. 4237- 0.1" I.II! 0.!" I.II? II I . II II I I “not”. I.III I.III I.II? I.II. '.’I4 0."! ".II‘ 3.“: Jun I.II. oIJu I.III 3.1” I.III I I5 . II II I II I I.I-nun I.III I.III I_III I.I;I d5 I.III -" .II: -I In 3:1” 0.3“ I.uo nu: in" I.I" I.III I II II II to Ilml lulu-u- D. In E.I:: I.II? ..‘II I.III I.Iu E -(,III -I.II._ 4,... I.III I.III I.In .i,ou I.III I.III I.III II II II 'I II . I _ 9 u \Wlul I.III LII: I.III I.II! I.II? I.III E ',|II .Ilho IIIII I.III 0.1" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I" I I I I I I u E tau-g I.III I.III I,7SI I.I" IJII I.III ‘ I.III many 4.”- I.III 0.3:! I.'I7 1.9” 6.!“ I.III I.III 0.136 5.2» II I. II I I II I 13 um. IJII Lin on" Q19 db Qfi I.III I.III I.III .I.III JAI: JIIIY I.III 0.173 I.I?I i 29; I n- I m IJII I .1” I. ’II I, I" II I II II :- Ml I.III I.III I.I!I I.I,II,I1I .r,nI 439:. Jan .I,III I.III ...I03 .5 an I III -I. III II.III oI.1II .I .II! II. In on!” I I I I II II II II II II II n ulnar-o... I.III Lin I.II! I.’II I.II! 0.7“ I.II, I.In I.III I.III I.III 0.0)! I.III I.I" ! I.In I1!“ Igm I.III I.III -I.III 6;"! I.III 0.!” I. no I.III I. I” I. II? I.II? oI.III II :0 I II II II II II II II lunar-1.. I.III I. II I.II! I.III 0.1“ In" L!“ IJII I.III I a," ..m mu; 5.": .33.. JSIWaJn I.I—II 3,6" L's” I.II, ..IIII.1.; {In 0.1" I.III I.II; mm I. _5 I. II‘ I. II I II II II II II II II n a n nut-I.- 0.01! I.III 4.731 I.III I.III I.II, I.III I.I" I.In I.III I.III I.III IJI’ I.III L— Tn: a "v .I "I: Luv I.III hill” i.m JJII I.I” I.III .I.Iv I.III I.III I.III -I_II'I 4,". u p u 2‘ II I I I I I II II II I I IJII I. n I. III I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.m I.III 0.996 I.III I.II? I.III I.III I. II I.I,I .c,II- I.II ‘ .‘.III .IJII -I.III I.III .i.In «.II. I.III «.II. «.II? .I.I« I.III -I.III I.III 9,»- II luau i ‘ I 9 II I I I I I I.III i. I, I.II! I.III I.III I.II! I.III I.II! I.III I.Iu I.I" I.III I.III I.III a...- H"! aids: 3.er Jan 4."! I.III -i.uI «.II: «.13! -I.ul IMO” I.III I.I" old“ 6.“: ' .u~ n 1.... I. II II I I. I. II II II II II II II I u I.II: I.IIi I.III I.III I.III I.In I.III 0.300 0."! I.III I.I" I.I?! IJII I.III I.III an: 9,2" I.I". .13.”. I.I?I 4,096 I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.uI I.I?! 4.“: I.III I.III 4.1“ “..:. n In»: I II II II II II II II I I.III L2” I.II, I.I" I.III I.III I.III IJII I.III I.III I,9.° I.III LIII 3:60? 4.!“ -I.1u -I.III I.III .IJII “.II. ".0" I.I” I.II, I..." 4-07! IL”. “.79- ” nun-I I I II I I . I I I I I I I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I" IJII I.III I.7II I.III I.III I.III I. n d “.110 I.III JR“ I.III «.II. I.In I.’l‘ «.II! I.III -I.xu -I.II? oIJII I.I" «.II: -I.III uu' 1’ I- t», n ., II I. I. I II II II II_ II_ II I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II. 0.3" 0."! I.II! I.III h!" I.III I.III I.I“ I.III Lion. Lin 0."! 0.x“ I.III I.Iu - I - . . n - . . . fl no I II II I II II II II II II II II I I.II! I.II, «.2» lo!“ 0.,“ 'JII I.I!I I.II! I.II: I.III I.II! 0.887 0.”! OJII I.III our mus I.” _ .IJII I.III -I.III «.II? «.II: 4.1:? «.II! ".1" I.III I.III I.II! I.III JJII «an as In... I.I-n I ~ I II I II II I “I II I I II 9 I.1II I.III I.II? I.III I.I" 5.74! I.I9I 0.37! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III mm d.“ , .iJ-n I.II! I II, I II in” I. III I m I III I {II I." . I III I III I.III :_ - u mu...- 1.... II :4 I u ' g. ' I II ' II ' II ' . II ' ' ° "9 I.III I.III I.III I.III 0."? I.III I. "I I.III I.III I.III I.II, I.III I.III I.III -uu o‘JII .ifligv I.III I III I III 5.." I III I "I I III I {II I In I III I H 4.110 -.n- 11 mm. mm... g. I I. ' . ' _ s ' II ' II ' II ' II ' II ' ' :I II .. I.III 5.094 I.III I.III ..IQ’ I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II] I.III I.III h“. mu .r. I1 , 7I . I -I u - . II - . I - . t.“- II am a... I. I. u ' II 9| ' I. I. ' ' II ' II ‘ II II ' II ' II ' I.Iu I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.’II I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III d “.III Ln; III-II dd“ I.III IJII 5.!!! odd“ «.070 ".II! 4.11. 4.!" OJ" Il-III I.III r."- n mu Innu- II . II . II II a II II II I II II II .. I.I" min I.I" I.III 0.3“ I.III IJII I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.III I.III I.III I. II I.II! 8 -~.In Luz, Jinn 4."! I.III I.Iv 5.." C.:“ II.II’ on": .IJfi .I. III -I. III -I. .II; I. III .0."- II I: Inc: (hum II ‘ II_ I II 30 I I I II II I I II I. i I.Iu I.III 6.7“ I.III I.III I. II I.II? I. III I. III I. In I. I" I3“ I. III I. III I. II ..q- 3 r,nI I.III III" 4.5" I.III «.II, 5,." «an -I.II| «.Iu I.III I.III IIJII “.II! .I.1 ~ .II a mu- I II II II I I I II II, II II II I II s I.In I.III I.III Lou I.III I.III IJII I.III I.III I.III I.III I. II I In ..:.," 4:1” .I;III -I I" I.III I ui JJII I I" II III II III I no I III I III I III I ”I 9 n hum-n I I II ' 9 I ' ' I ' I ' I ° ' ' ' _ ' "I I.III 3.6:} In“ I.III I.III I.III L7“ I.III I.III IJII I.I" I.II: I.I" I.III I.I.I 01.17, .6,“ 7 IL“? I.III o. I". "I -I.II7 I III I III I III I II' I III I. III I III. 0.. II. 3 , , I: In. A... u 2. ~ II ' .2. g ' ' ' II ' ' ' ' II ' ’s. can I.III an“ I.III I.III II 6..“ 0.090 I.III I.III I.III .II ...u I.III I.III- .I,’Iu I In -I III -I In Jun . . I II In I . . .._ . II mum I _ I‘. u ' u ' ' I. I ' II ' II ' II II ' ' II ' II II ' II ‘ 3. I.I“ I,‘hI I.III IJII I.III I.I:I I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I :37 g I.III .15;ng .Ithn I.III I.III .I,III i. in .6. III 0.. In -I. III IJII inn “.1" .I. III. ”II. p "g I! III-.1 I I I. I II I I I I I u i I.III I.III I.III but I.III I.II? I. III I.III I. III I. In I. In I. I” I.I:I 9.0.1 I. II .I. III .I III I III I m‘ II III I In -I III .I II? oI m I m I.III -I m -I III I III I “I )I “.II-IQ I. I. ' 'I '9 ‘9 'II 'I ' ' I I ‘ I 'II ' II I. In I. Ii I. III I.I’I I.II: I.I" I.III I.III I.III I. II I.III I.III I.III Q.I|’ ! Irma-I cur-r m m I. Inn-.- “m- 1 I 2 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I to l u l u I u I II II I ll 169 TABLE A.6.-~Corre1ation matrix for the Mexican-American .i.i39 In 5'Igs .é.I.I Q f.’1' I.III '0 ‘.I9' §.n.I ‘I 5.’31 .nlryé “P ) 5.¢3I ...:}; .;:I" I I 5,;3! PMRl sample. 1Parents of the retarded. ' ‘3‘ Q.Ix4 ‘.1.‘ ‘0 ‘.l70 I.‘Qd 5 3:19‘ ‘6 ?.§[I I.IOI ...t.4 I I 0.1.9 I:III 3.319 I.I:- n.57I I. I I I.III ‘.IJ$ '- I.III I.7II I.II? ‘I I I ',773 I.I.o mentally K. .' I ‘0 I .. I ‘. ' I 5' I 9' i.IIa I.III 0.013 I.III I.III I.III I.III ;.F.9l .5;I.I I.II. I.?OI I.II! I.II. F.”’ "I331 II II ‘ I I. I II II F.III I.III I.i|9 I.XII I.1II I.III I.III F.695 iIIII I.II! I.III 0.27! f.1II I.720 -I.III I.III I' I. 5 I. I I. II II '0 ..:.. ..m I.III I.‘.I I.III I.III I.I" w I.fsi 6,I2I I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.22I II.ISO I.II! I.III a. I II II II I 90 ’0 ‘ ’ I.III I.III I.I?! l.'.4 I.III I.III I.III 0.070 I},I.I ’31123 .l.31t - .iII I,I1£ E.III I.III I.III oI.III I.I.I I...: 4‘ I 5 I In. I I I I II ) §.III I.III I.I.J I.III I.I?O ..77I I.III I.III I.III I.III 6.5II fgIII I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.III II.075 I.III ~I.I3I .I.IJI I.III II II 50 II II 9 II II II II II i.§II I.III I.II. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.7II I.III 05.5.1. .i,91| .I.IIO .I,III ...17i .§,1II .I,.I: II.II! I.III ...III ..;I.l .I.III I.III 'I 9| I I I II I II 15.... Id}? I.III I.III I.III I.’Il I.II: I.III QED I.III .i.vII .3;I.I .I.II| I.III ...:.I 6.3.0 .I..II II.I2I I.II! .I.III -I.III I.III I.III I.III II I. I I II II I I I I I I {.6II I.III I.III I.I.I I.III I.III I.III 0.039 I.7I’ I.?I? I.III I.III .I.III I:III I.III I.III I.III I;III I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.II? -O.IIS 0.107 I.II! ~f-13‘ q I I. II 90 I II 9 I 9 59 5.“. I.III «m: 3.11. I.III «mp I.II: I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II- I.I:- I.III oI.IJO I.III I.III {.III -I..;I -I.III I.III I.III I.!II I.III I.III II.III '.1II $.57. . I 5 I. . ' I I I I z I. I. I.'I’ I.7II I.’I7 I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III 41:15; I.III I.III I. II I.III I.II. , 44___fi. ‘Aggggl-L___v_ 44I¥A1____¥, - ‘ _ -9.!II .I.III 'I.;:z -I.!7I I.III .I.!9I oI..3I I.II! II.02! .I..II .I.III I.III .I...I ...... .~.,.. ..‘,9. _..1,‘ I6 I. II I I. 90 I II II I 9 . I: II ‘.II‘ I.III I.IyI (!::!I) I.I.I ..III I.III I.III ..III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III -.III -d.irs I.I.I I.III ..:.: I.I.I I.2II I..?I I.III I.III oI.II’ II.II! I.III I.III I.III ‘.’ti I.III I3.I31 .I.III _ II I _ 9 'I I I I II II II II I , I In _ II In I. ‘.I1‘ I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I?! I.II: I.III Iltl}: I.III *.‘2? I.?II I.III 9.2.7 -I.III i;III I.III J.27I I.II? I.III n.71. I.III I.II, I.III I.III I.II? I.III 6.0,. ‘.III I.III .i,nII ...:.) 3.0.. I, I I; I In I. 50 II “I II II II II 9| ‘5 I3 ‘9 90 I i.+II «.Irv J.‘IO (1::EID I.III 0,39! I.III I.7II I.III 0.011 0.111 I.III I.III I.III n...- +_;13 .,... ~.,,I .. _ Iran, Inn: cnIIICI 93““"'1‘ CIA-II ouxllzIrxaI Ilgagja. n u l I! I 20 I n I u I 13 2‘ ['3 I" I 1’ ”I 29 l )0 I 31 1 )2 I )1 II I ”J Ill-Hl- -Fil 170 l ‘Ituncm I.III 2 III-Inn _I I00 I.II; I bu! hula-no. g...) 0.1‘6 3.91;!) 51’0"!" I ”maul 0.... 0.127 " I‘Iu I139? 9,9" I.III 2 II 3 E 70.1“. 0.700 ‘ .I.I7I I. __III I. _nI I.III I.III ‘“ 1111‘ ’33"‘ "*W‘ I nun I.III I. 700 I.III I.III I II7 0. I23 I 722 I. ”I (1.751 ..III “__- _fi 7 M14196 d1: div 6 din Mme? -I.hn -I.III 6.127 I.III will I.I" __.. E n x I. II I ‘umtm I.III _I.}II I.II_3_ I.III I.III W I.III .muo 4.129 -I.uI I.III -_I.IIIT do, I II I III - ...:—fl. ..— .35, . z 2 I ...:-nun «.II: I.III I.III I-“l h’“ hi“ 1:97,- I.II? -I.j02 -I.II5 -_I. I}: _ I.II I _.,_II0 I.II: I.III I.III I ' 3 In 50 S! I: 30 1° hml ”II-“I'- L157 Ln? __ I.Iu_ ”:0 .I§I_ "-??._,..0;?9‘, I.III I: . ”I- . ,. . , ~ I 175 -I II? I I I I -I II .. 7 I In I m I III I III J..¥r. J.-. __JL . ' -..Jfir -1 ”3.. I. I ll Inca-“Id I.III I.II: I.III I.II—I __ I. .333 I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III 4413‘ I.II) I.III __.:III ,_I_."' _I.“: I.III 0.923 I.III '5! 30 N“ ""A ’ SI II SI SI 9 so I u E run-I I.III _ IJI: I.III I.III In.“ I.II: Ian-13L”: ‘ I.III I “I I. IIIo _I. III _I.!Q’a . :III I III I.In IJI’ I.III I.III I.II: ' II ‘10 II II II D Inu- I.III I. III I.III I.III «m I.III I.III I.IIz I.II; 1'13.” __LI I I.II; ”a”. _._.I_II :Imlg _I.": I.III IJXI' IJII I. 7" I.III 14 um I.9)I I.III I.II: I.III I.III I.Iu dbm dedD ® 1 .o.uI .I,Ios on._OJI -I,II1 >-I.IO7 {HIII 4.le -I.I?2 I.III -I.III I.III I.III -I.III I.III ‘ SI ""30 RI 5' 7” I: ' I II II II II 90 90 u latency-«Inn. I.III 0.011” 1.431.. I.III II9I1__. I.1:I 70-356 I.II: I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.In nun I.II: -r.III I.III I.III ..III I.III I.In I.III I.I." I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 5 50 5 90 9U 9.; I» I v - . . H "(hour-ht- I.I37 I.III I.III I.In I.III I.1II I.III W m .-w my) dn-III 1111)) (w I In I.III I.III I.III I.III 4‘.le o..II1 I.III -I.III II.III ".II! I.III 00.309 ".10 «.179 «.II! I.III _ " I s flu “"33““ “ 3 * II I: I I I 9 5c 17 a nun-I.I.- I.III I.I;Ih I.1II 3.79:7: 3.0.1} 7 I.III I.III I.III 0.910 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III mu: .I.III -I.III -I.III -I.III I.III -.3II0 ~I.III -I.III I.III IIJH I.III -I.III -I.III oI.III I.II? a...“ II III-cu ‘ so M" I" ’ “II‘ I; I a I S I I I.III I.I" I.III I.III I.IrI I.III I.III I.In _I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II-I I,1I: l, "h“ “.020 0.1" I.III 3.103 I419 ..II7 I.III I.II? an" «an an" -I.n7 0.!19 II.IJI I.II) I.III '3!) ' 2' " W " ‘ Ir— ‘ I I II II II II II I.II? I.III I.I7I I.III “E111 ,, I.III I.III 0.212 I.II: I.III I.I" I.III ..377 -I.H7 -I.zoI _I. _III _-I.III -I I" -.-.II7 «.on -I III -I II? -I In I.III : III -I In I III II In .I 1.1 N P1“ ' " II 1 " -:“1:‘——‘w "II ' I ' I ' s ' I ' I ' ' 9| ' 5. ".112 I.II: I. III I.III_ I.‘OJ‘HI.IJO I.III IJII I.III I.III I.I?! I.II’ I.III I.III I.III 0.109 -o.I27 «.025 I.II: I.III I. II: ...III I.III I.III I.III I.I’I 0.3" I.II? -I.II7 I.III I.III I.II; zI nun: II II II ‘ II '3 I I : I II II II II II 1.371 ‘I.III_ I.II! _I_._I_II IJU I.7_I_I_ I.III_ I.III '03.. Ion? I.III 0.902 I.III hm I.II- I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.III ..327 0.812 -I.III I.Iv I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I“ ...:" 0.1.9 n III-o... II ‘ ' 9 W I ‘ II I I ~ . I 5 II 'f-“L 0.280 I.III I.III 73m“! I.III I.III I.III I.7II 0.007 I.III my I.III I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.II: I.IYI I.III I.II? I.III -I.III I.III -I.Iu I.III IIJI? I.III I.III I.III I.II: 2! II .101 “‘ ‘ ' "’ I ‘* ‘“’ ' I II 'II I II I.III 0.120 I.III I.III I.III Id)? I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.III I.I-1? -I.III -I.III 4.22:! hll’ ”.II! «.813 '0-1" -I.III -I.I7I -I.III -I.17: -I.In «.III I.III I.I.O u I.I ' H 9r II 9r "- fiv* * I * ' II II II II II I I I.III I.III I.III 0.105 I.III I.7II I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.III 0.9." I.I?o 0.1” I.IIS' I. III I_. III ..III I.III I. III I.III -I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III II.III 0.0.5 II Ila. but. "‘ it“ ‘ 9v ‘ — OI II 'II II II II o I.IzI I.Izz I. L95 I.III I.II? I.II? I.III I.III I.II? I.III I,547 I.II! I.III I.III _I.”: -I.III -.-III _I:.l“ "at” -I.I2I -I.III -I.III I.II2 .II“! -I.III I.III .1..." II nun. [.03. " ’ " ‘J -- ~"“ "‘ 9 II II I.I?! I.III I.II! I.III I. 0” I."I I “0 I.I” 0'". Id“ IJI? I.III 0.982 I.I” I.III I.III I.I" 0.!" I.I" 0.19! do”. I.I-III I.III 0.3” '00..’ '0'!“ ~I.ISI I.III dd!" ”.II. I.II! -I.I7I 21 ungu- Ion-u — '91 ‘ ‘- "W _‘__,'___”A_ ’m—"MII ’ II I II I II II I.III 0.100 I.III 0.2.9 I.III I.III I.III I.I" I.III I.III I.7I2 I.I!O I.II: I.III I.III 0.725 I.I?I I.III I.III -I.1II I.I" -..III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 0.!!! II III! «In... ‘ _‘ — ‘n 71 7v 9" “ ‘ 'l II II 0.220 I.II) 0.157 I.IM In.” I.I" I.III I.III I.II? I.I" I.III In“ 0.17! I.III .I’.’ 0.!“ -I.I7I -I.III -I.III I.III -I.III ..Iu -I.I2I I.III I.III I.Iu onus I.III 0.191 I.III I.III I.III 1’ cuu lung -— ’9 ‘IV W W 1v 7' 71 VI " 3U 9' 9. 9| ‘9' Q. " 9° 8 I.II? 0.720 I.III I.IU L727 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II, 0.179 I.III I.III I.III ‘3 In,“ 4.10! I.II! -I.I1I -I.I” I..I" .IJII do.“ ”.0" In"! ...uz do!" «.111 I.III! I.III I.I" In i am on"; ”" “ —"“V —"9:’"——“ — “‘ —‘ “ II II II II II I I i I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.!77 I.II? I.III 0.": I.III I.In I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III -I.I_II -I.I7I I.III -I.III 4.on «.III -I.III I.II? I.Iu I.III I.III I.III oI.III I.III I.III I.III II Ina-u.- 9v "“9! —' ‘ , ——~II‘——-II"-~II # k *" ' ‘* 9‘ '~ I II II 9 II .7“ I.III I.III I.II7 I.II: 0.691 IN“ IA" I.I" I.III 0.11. I.II? I.II? I.III I.I" n.0,. I. III I.III I.III -I.III I.I" “.II: I.III I.III -I.III -I.III -I.III -I.III «.II: no.1“ Id“ “.0" n Mum: u“. 3' W ‘1! II n W 7U *1 TV ' " ‘ " ' I I.I" I.III I.III I.I?! I.I’I I.III I.II! I.III 0.7" I.III 0.7" I.III I.III I.III I.I)? on. N I III -I III - III I," _I.!” I.II? -I.II1 I.III II III .I III a: 51...... iii—WW In II II * II " II ' II ‘ II I I III Inn L229 I.I" I.II: 0,72 .1“! I.III -I In ”Jul I III I.II? ..I I I In -I II I I _I.:u I.III I.III «.II: I.II: «.II .I III II m: m “4‘?! ““4”qu r—VI—llv—A—IIH II II II II II "'4 II I. III I. In I.13d I. III I.III IIIII I In I. III III“ _Ifiglq -1509! I.III _ I.III 9!!!!*'112' I.III B o . II II III -I III II “I -I m . I... __.: . ,0 . J. - __...." “.5 II ‘1‘ ram: m 11 I s E I.III -qu 0.097- I._1_“ I.III Hug] -_I._I7I> __II_.I"II 7 . . I ohm flu u: . III II III .I I I u I, _n m—h—LLS. II 4W4L1I"—L‘n "" ‘Io I.III I.III I.II. I.II! I.III I.I" I21" I.III I17" _I.“. I.III "lulu:l 3"!“ “I" m m In. . M u II “run-m 1 a 3 I S C 7 0 1° 11 u I) TABLE A .7 171 .--Correlation matrix for the Mexican-—American RSTl sample. ‘1292' “I: :L I.I I “.0 Regular school tachers. '1'.” '3’.” I.III - '2!!! I.III I.I I.III "“‘II .. , I.III _!.II7_'_I.III I37II , .1232. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III UI.,. SI 13"” _- DI ' I.IS7V .2'3°3 _ 0.371 I.490 -I. II7 I.III I. II7 -I.III J-IOI I.II? ‘lo —“‘9 “‘9' I. III 0.129‘470.I’l_ I. III I.III -I.177 I.III I.III -I 1'. -..II: IltIl II III ‘. ..__.__. -——j I.’2§ ._. .04 I.N7 .0‘.‘ I031. .0,“ .0”. I.III -I.III I.III I.III ..III I.III I.III II III so ‘!I "9 ""‘ I—‘W fl I.III ‘03.!I ”Nil... _I.:gi___I.III I. III I. III _ I.III -I.III ...073 _IzzII I.III -I.II! -I.I79 .:I339I ‘..O‘.' I.I7I I.III I.III Io“? I.I" .0... I.I” I.I" hm I.”C 7:"... ’3‘7’ _I.!" __UO..' ..l..’ ..I.,' 11"“ _ '0‘.. E2... I.I7I I.III I.III I.II? I.I7I I.III 0.979 I.II7 I.III -I.III -I.1I7 I.III I.II! II-I’! I.III I.III -I.II0 IIIIII -I.III II.III . ‘ . _ — ,'- —.——” ’ . -- __.— ..37. ...I, 9.3—7] < 0.31;. .3." ..‘l’ .I”’ .I.“ .I”. .II’. _gfl. ...73 Us... :.~:”. '1‘.L MI..’ ...2‘ ..I... ..I.“ ..O’.‘ ..I." ..I... .I1‘. ‘ 3' "9' vv ‘1' fit! 71 ’ ""‘ I.IoI I. Ifxv I. III I.III I.III I.III I.7I7 I.III I.7I7 I.7I7 I.III [.010 .I.III ~I.III I.III u..III -I.III -I.III I.III II.III cI.III -I.III I.III II.III I ‘3. *' *" -' ' ‘*'*‘ *‘ - -* I.III I.III I.7II I.III I.III I.III I.III I.77I I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.III I.III -I.III -I.17I I.III L-IS’ I.I?! -I.III I.III -I.17I I.III I.III oI.III I.III I.III II I I I II I I II I.III I.£IL_I.222 I.III ILILIthn I.7II I.II7 I.III 1.172 3.17:- I.7II "’21- t! 1 I II . " -I III ' 1II I I.Iu I.II: , I.IOI I.III I.III , 9.19.0!__'I"’_ ”33L cl 237 I . I I" I In - _JII .I .I In .I In ”39 w. ’thu—JLu—ar—L—n—J—vr h Jim—1T _._,,_. II7 7I I I. II I 77I I It! I.I I I II7 “I MI 0.217 I. III -I.III I.IIIi II I III ..I I III I III {11!_I II II -I II7 _oI II7 0.01 I.III .I 051 .II. II ..gl___z_“.__1"_‘h_"_1_"_h;!;' AL “_I..“ "'bW-h‘m -- .---, .9- _ 0.9;2_!,;?1”*I.?II I.III III I III I. III I I7I I.III !.'IO IIIII IzIII I.III I. I7I 1 0.800. I.7aa I.III 10411;. . to!” -I.us I.In I.III I.III c ‘- -—-—“ ._. a . _ I.II: ,'-11? I.III I.I77 I.III Io'II I.III I.III I.II? I.III I II. I.III I.III IgIgI I.7I2 I.III 0.125 0.1:. .I'azgo 1,173‘ _:} I III ca. II I III I I . -I.III I.x71 9.1;I ..15; ..y;. ‘ \ F—'-‘ " '—- vw-s , . ..:16 I. 212 I.III I.III I.IiI I.III I-I" I.III I-IQ' I.III I.III I.?II I.III I.II. I.III I.III I.III I.III IIII IIIIICI lllflllll‘ IIquIIIxInuIIII ...:“1a. 17 II I II I II I I: l I: I; 13 II 1‘2: 1 II I :7 7 1‘ [1’ I¥AJI l l 32 l 33 3. ,5 ' -—--—- III 172 1 latest”. I III = ._.... a). I III I I77 I III IA!" 7_!7..O‘1I ‘ “WM EM S E Dally E I.Il9 I.III I.II} I.Iu I.I’I ‘ km- I.ISO I.III I.III I.III -11.!” _irns 7011077 I.III 0.“! ' W CED i555: .I.III -I.I7I I.III I.III I.II! ..III I.III . '7 '7 UK '1 I! n not-oz". LSD. quI I.III Io‘il IIOIJ 0.000 .I.III :23?!" ,J,:,°” -I.IIO -I.Ifl JI.‘. -I.I7t 0.7.7 ’ Ion-tiv- nJII I.III I.III 0."? h"? I.II: I.III -e.nII IL"! 0.13! I.III 0.!“ oh“: I.III I.Iu I.77I ,. _.- I __-. . . _____ WWW , l _A 10 but ”than... n_I21 I.III 0.220 I.III I.II7 I.Iu I.III _ E332 ___ E «nan -I.Iu I.I7I 0.130 I.III ..:II I.III I.II? I.III I.III F? W I! w u g manual I.I?I 0,737 I.III I.In I-"I 0-1" "’°' QED , W - I,III I.III I.III 0.11? I.II. 4.x). I.III I.III I.II7 I.III I.II? a ’“b'n'm‘“"T “TY — ' fi " A ' ' " 11 E h-u-I «.II. I.III I.III I.III IuII I.III I.III I.III I.III Id). ...III IA“ I.III I.III I.III I.II: I.III " “ ’CT“”“ ' - ‘ 7" "_‘ ' " a " n ' It ’ I? 11 Ian. 0.19: I.III I.III , I.III I.III I.II: 0.17717 I.III .n,u7 .I.III I.III I.IO7 0,1,1 ..II: I.III I.III I.III I.III I.7II I.7II I.III It '1 W '1' ' “ ‘ I " “ M“ I.II: I.III I.III 0.171 I.III I.I“ 0.101 I.III -I.m nu? I.I” h“. IolId 0.11) I.II: 3.136 I.III I.III _II II ~" '— * ** ** II II II If” If" II ”I? u “floaty-~Ou. I.Iv I.III I.III |.17I 0.904 I.III I-HO I.III I.III I.II7 I.III I.2II I.III I.III g I.III -I.III -I.II7 I.III I.III, -:.I71 4.!“ I.III I.I" I.I" I.III I.II: -I.2II I.III I.III II I: I II II I II I I II II “ "““W‘m- I.7II I.II; 0.94. I.III 0.011 I.III I.III . 3., I I 9 '0 I73 0 II I 7 I,I1:_2_ I " Bi ‘h'h‘c- I.I7I I.7II_ J_I.27I I.Iu 0.,“ In“ I.I" 0147; I.III I.III I.III I.Iu I.III I.IIg I III .I ’ -_.0 III 9 __.I 4 .7011.“ .. 9 N " '0' . I :11} 4L” 1 "I 1.1.2! _IIIO" I II .I III II Inn-I ‘L‘lh‘ tr—l‘llfi *M‘I "II—"J _grm. I! "LT I! 1:! :2 “ T: u I} ' :2 ”‘4 I1 0406. I.III I.II; I.III I.III I.I7I Io." I.III I.III I.III I.Is' 0.305 0.13 I.II7 I.III 0139A I I I I In __ VI _le I. II ..II: ,0 III I III Aug" 711‘ I I III , I III I.III I 2” I I I I no " N'“ In ”If n"J—n—— I fir‘L I! 1u ' n' ‘ I. 1 ‘ a ”Lu -~-~‘ n 0,302 I_.IIJ“ 9.714 I.III I.III 0.337 01307__1._N_I_7 9.332 I.III ah I.I7I n.IoI 20 I he- ‘ , 1 i . ‘. Lu. ...‘L.’1,.'_ -‘L, 7, I '-U,Q,-__'s”,‘ £2121.._.._!;1” Jel’i "3“. - "9W" hut '2’" 0.”! 09,1" "..!W.I’§° '4" 0&5 I III «.217 .III I.1I7 "um ..III I III .I III - III I III I- 27 m: I77 I "I I III -I In .I I I I: II In" WW____l'r- 9.. I ..-l. "I“ ,,,,, , ...:, ' IL," A L I! , 0 H . '2 e I, ' I - , I II: 3.72; I.III 0.916 6.12. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II!“ 3.12”- ..un I II: -I.II7 I.III I.III -I.III 4.271 I.III -I III -I III -I I7! I.III I III I II: I I47 .I up .. 13 ”but ' -— ~*-—> --—- n‘—-‘-11--'* ,"_ ' l‘nnl I17" , L77 ' '7 " -' IY"" In}: "-‘°’,___',-,‘,°.'_ -,°-°.12-4.~3« M9. O-iLLJ-m 9:141!“ ,_--m ,1»!- cm]2_o.m Ala" -.m . - . I .. , I - I . . . - . u I luv I.II, I.III I.1I7 I.III I 01' III I u I II I In I.III I III 1.490 I.II. .I.III «.II: < __11’?‘ «332 w w» .95‘“ _ , _, ”...:-m e-m oars @__°-33‘ mu I III -I xv - .I7I -I.oII -o.ul ..I I ‘I II7 hon III I an -I.I7I .o In I.III I.III -I III I I 1 1‘ “7 —"‘VI‘"””—W“"L“fl“""fl' "W~'%+7r ’71—1‘“ 71 " 7| 7. ' 7r"*'7 -'— ‘4 -J ”I. n.97o I.III I.II: I.III I.III I.III h"! I.III I.Iu I.III I.III 0."? 0.5». I.II: I.III I.II! -° ’93 2 X9! _-i.-_'12_ L9 379 M”! 4-! 2,1! 12’ ' 3.“ l1 1"... JILL! -. I.II? 3. ”t 11990 I.III III I n- ” '“- ""'" I L I: I: ' u '1—1n ‘ “”4 ‘ n I: u ‘ 1.. Ir ..:- 1‘ Afi‘ ' ° «m I.III I.III I.III 0.772 I.III I.III * I111: I.III yo.Iu_ I.III e._lI__§ my!“ “793 _ a I. S ”1““ m . .‘3 0. 0 3 . ‘ OI.I7, “0.30? Cu: ’, '. ‘31 “I!” I, X,‘ __.: 9" '° 1.. . .7, 0 2.. g I.411-___I.V!I’I I.III 0.49. I.III_ _I.!II 0.190 ,- 1.2.!!! “ o._g!§__fl:vdg3_- my 7 I.III ._III I 6.3 4.91: .I I on I77 -I III . .III -I u: oI III I 187 II7 I II I 1 l a II: 17 nu.“- uumu —'—77-—“'*77—"—'.71—“’*"77—"'--77—'-‘77—‘—7r—L vr—L—n-JJ—"Tr "'*"““77' “""77 ‘ ' ‘ Whit” "9 '77 ““0"“;7 fi,‘x‘ 0,.0‘ '...fl 0.... .t": .O)7’ 'Io’. I.III 0.1.3 0.30. 0:1.3 JI“3 .12‘. .I’:’ OL‘.J L o no I.III .II! I.II: I.III .327 I (I. -I In - II I I.II , 7 .a I 2“ . u “n M. WWWW, .. i__-._7_. J .7 . , ' , 3 W; Ll! J.,ITJ-r" W13.“ :h”: _ I.II}? 5.96 71.190 IJJI all-fl» (LU! 0.792_7_V .Vg:_9_0'°._ 0.501 I'I.2__ 0:221 I.II, I III I III I o I B70 I “I 1.x“ I III -I "I III III - I7 -I III I ”I -I I 7 III .II no II can lam. W‘ n ' I: 11 ‘ ' ~J—I'r“Lin—AL‘IT‘ “‘4‘” B I.I’o 0.101 .M I.II? I.III I.III _II I.III 'IVJII .. I.III ,hl’- I.III “£11" I.III I.I.C . I 3 -I I 39. I I . - 7 o I I I ,. 5 Mm (mm 41.1"“ L: 4.01;. hflg‘ Jusw, Jo 7r _hflk ,InLI‘_ ”an" g I.I” L970 I-"I I.I-II I.I" I.II? I.III I.III I.u7 I.7II I.III I.7II I.7II “LE—‘4‘ I III I III In I III -I I" “.III I.I" '0 HI -I I" I III 1.1” I “I -I III II III I "l I on . W .2. I ...I. _ _ _ _I.- _I-. _ __ .._.I. .. I ._ I - _ _, . ’1 ~ n— _II—LII— x—‘fiI—flr—‘I‘r4 II I!“ Ir II II #1 II ’ n n a I.III I.II? I.I7I OJ“ I.III M" M“ In“. 4329!. 9:9“--J-‘ELJA'1. 9W"3__.,'_v!’.',. “J“ 11 bltuul J 7 I I 7 I .I II7 3L7" I.77I I.III I.III I.In I.7I7 I.III I.II} I I I II I I I III ’, .1. III .0. '1‘." 0‘ :1 .II n .I ’l I '17 .I‘q,_r._‘..:‘ “04??! ‘ I4” I.III I.7II 0,104 I.III I III I.1I7 L177 I.7II I.III 0.!" I.III I III -I.III -I.II -I.III I I" 00-3 I -I HI I UI II 72 I . I I u I l.“ , . I 1,; I.III I. I; I.I I I m v I.III . «.II 7 I III I.III I.II! 0.)" I.II? I.III h.“ 0.1;? .II" I.II? I.7II I.III I.III _Isau I.III 8 ————L _-_.. u ‘1 I.I..um _I_._eI! a I.II! I.III I.III IL"! I.III I.In I.I” m9" I II? III II II I III I HI I III I III I II‘ M I PM .L- ' L_', ___'__ . Inn I.III 0.1" 0.0“ 0."! I.;II ..u7 0.1" mt» all!) ;’ Im‘ “7"" m Imam III-XI"! nu. “Ills-I- : I I I I l I I I L I l 7 I I I I 10 I u l n l u I II 173 TABLE A.8.--Correlation matrix for the Mexican-American PNRl sample. 0.135 _Mi 1Parents of the nonretarded. -. DI! - 9 .II 6 3 9.’17 0.37. I.II? I I-Iu-I- 0. 6 - 7 'I a 6 O 35 .. I 11, -I .7I 0.7.9 0.127 I.I90 0.3LI 0.29. IIJOI I.II? C D. 75 0 JJ '0 I! .VO 2 - 817 '0 I64 I I) l 1 1 ) I-‘OI 0.3.. III}. IIIOO 0.1.. 0.891 0.907 0,... 0.107 0.0!! ...:. |I370 I.III CI... .IOIO .l... .I!" ...8. 0.0.0 0.6.7 0.62! 0.357 I.III .I‘OO II‘I. 0,10! 0.737 0.772 II773 0.57. I.III I.III -I.III 0.070 I.III I.III III" -I,III ..I... I.III I.III I.III IIIIII «.III I I II II II I 7 I 7 7 I I n I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I77 I.I" In” 011.0 IIOOIV I.III III .I." -vl..2 .0 0.0.! .I.,. '0 $9. .Iti. 0.0,) .0... .I001 I SII .I'l' I 0", 'OIOll I 0.. I.III I.I7I I.III IJII I.III I.III I.III L3“ -I III -.'..III -I.I7I II.I.I . "I -I.III I.III -I.III ‘11 I.III W n I > I.III I.II7 I.II7 I.III I.III I.III I.III III" 7 . I . - . .77 -I ..023 5.5,:17 .,1.:x . 0"] cu It. 0 I '1? .330 I. 3" .IOJI II!!' 0 ‘20 309.4 :21... I'll. gln1:2_ O 17:5__QL°935‘ 7 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III OII7I‘_I_IW7§I I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III “173° °-'£2__J_-,9l_l?__ I.III~ I.III I.III I.I7I' «an 0.01:“ «.III' «.ng I.IJ:' 0.10:7 I.III,r “0:. II!0:' I.II:v “7.03:0 °.I1:r 9,“: can “_IJ,’ I.I7I I.III I.I” I-I’I__I._III I395 Io”: ‘I,IAII_“I.III I.III I.III I.III ———"."3E_m_-_!_-3;1_ «1.123; !._I_I7 JLSII . I.III -I.II1Ir_-_._..gg:1 I.II:I I.II:2 .I.III huh I.III I.III 73.32: I.III 0L0}! g . 73—3” , it”: 7 M6262J-09 1:— —u~-w T— w——*—3 W _ p ) I.III (KID I.III I.III Id» In" I.III I.III flbfiouu I.III ...:“ ...:; H.280 m Inn.- ”own“ mm- III-Inna: mm- " «Iujwlnlnlv -Iulz-l»a1»l»inl==l””I” I p .1 III: 11.1 1 Icons”. I.III 1 have I.III I.III 3 but Int-tu- I.I5I 6.!" III" 6 E ”(haul .I M!" I.III I;III I.III 5 g hum && ‘ I.III I.III IIIII I.III I.III 2‘2 ‘ I I.II-I I.III 9.'1' I.III I.In‘ I.NI I.III I.III I I 1 bu! I.III I. II7 I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III III I," 3 ‘ I Itocootm I.III I .III I.II! 0.0IC .I.II{ I.III I.III -I.IxI I.III I.III I.III 2‘2 ,2‘ I}: J 2‘ n: I I 5...“... I.III 9.0!, I.III I.III I.III 0.117 I.III “Li" 5:") IJII I.III I.II? Lin I.III I.II? 2‘2 _III “I III II I.III I.III-III. I.III I.III I.III I.III E I.III I.I" IjIII I.III «.III 0.0.? I.III I.III I.III I.III III .II: I III III I: ”mttul I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 3.1:? III" I.III I. 216 I.III I.III I. III I. II! I. II72 I.III E 2‘! .23: II I: E noun. I.III I.III I.IOI I.III IZIII‘ I. III I.III I. III I. III II. I‘ .IIIImn I.IIII.1II v2 .. ..... ..m (fibfidfivdfiv db&>&&9¢bdb d3» I.III ‘ ‘II' i: “I I.III I. III I. III I. III I. 7" I III I. 0.,“ I .III .. I... Hsdfibdfibdflbdflbdbdflbdfipdbdbd’ab I.III Iju Iilv I.II! I.III I.III I.III I.II? I.II? I.III I. III I.III I.III I.III II: ,2)! 2 I III III III 3‘2 2! I III I u smug-m. I.III I.III I. I7 I.II? 0.11! I.III I.III I.III I. In I.III I.III 5 b,l7! I.III I;III I.II! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I” I.III III _II; III III 1‘! 2” III I t!" 10 . Inner-Int. '.’O‘ 0.01; “.202 0o 1" ..‘O. 0.09. 0.", ...:. I.III TJII In! I. I" I.rII I.III [m I.Iu I.III I.III I.III I.II! I2!!! 'l'.fiI"‘I.'I'fl_'-I',~'-.I III 132 III III I I III III, III 2!! II m as; n i III-lulu- I.III m I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 0.7.2 I.III .3" I.III ~55" IZIII I.III .I.III I.III I.III «I.III ~I.III -I.III «.II? I.III I.III -I.III I.III .I I.- u - I.II-I I II: II: I" III III "1 III "I III In I I I - ‘2 P.‘1.‘ in“ I.III I.III 0.1" I.III In" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III D.,” P Jr: .I.III i In L‘nI I.I?! I.III 0.381; I.III I.III -I.oI9 oI.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I .9;- II II “I 2': :2“ n . II 231 23131 2:: III III 2 I.III I". I.III I.III I.III I.III I III I.III I.III I.III I. II:- I.III .I.III .IUnI II. III I. III «.III .I.\'II .I.I7I II.III -I.III II. III .I.In II III .I I" «.II. I.I” 1° " h“- 2'. ”g 3 III ' 3 a II 2" III III I ' ' _ I I 2'. I.III I.III L200 I. III 0.". I.III I.III I.III I. II? I.III I.III . II l..,' n n nu, .51.. “3.3” 3.1.2 I.III I.III 0.13? I‘.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III 0.?09 I.III 4.”; .3" 2‘: 2‘2 2‘2 238 212 2‘2 232 232 28: 132 132 23 I" '4‘: I.III I.III 11.7" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.III 0.7.. 12 III-I.I .r,III .I.’ In; I.III I.III 0.117 I.IIi I.III -I.III -I.I2I -I.III I.III I.III I.II? I.III .I'JII I.I)? 2‘: in: II: 1!! _ 182 232 II! 232 8!! "I I: 2'; I.I.S .III 1.983 I.III I.III 0.9M I.I" I.III I.III I.III I.III I. II f.'6h n :- I.II, ot.fllt $.37; 5;... I.III I.III I.2II i2"! «I.III IOJI’ -I.III I. IIIz .I.III I.III I.III .I.III c..." 2n n2 2‘: I 2!: III III I I I I 7.2 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II: I.III I.III I. III 0.7" I.III I. II '.'LI II III I.III .I.iu .fip-II .I.III IOJSI .I.I1I .FJIII I.III ~I.I13 I.III .I.III .I.III 00."! -I.III .I.I!I r3). 2’. III In ’ ”I III 22. III III ’0 III III III III II. I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ‘.7}’ I.III I.III I.III 0.71. I.III I.III I.III In" n.7,. 2! nu. ..t .I_III I.III flu, I.I" I.I?I I.III I.II? I.II? I.III I.I" 0.1” 6.!“ I.III I.II? I..." c,"- o 2‘; ”I. 211 I ‘1 2‘1 23; II: 231 III. III 2‘ I.III ‘..1‘I I.III I.m I.III I.III I.III 0.1“ I.III I.III I.III I.III ZI laugh. I.III. Iv.qu 4.“; 3.1.1 «.II! -I.III «.II? .I.‘III .I.III I.III I.III I.II; I.II! I.III 0.": 4.0:: 0".00' n In 277 II7 v) I In 227 I I 7 7 .I 2,, n I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.I" I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I:- 11 unu- IAII. I.III 4.6.3 I.III -I.III -I.m -I.It’ oLIII -I. III I.III I.III 0.07! I.III I.III I.III II.” a..." 1" t’? 197 821 227 271 7’ 227 2" 2" 2’7 2" I" I” 9 297 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II? I.III I. III I. III I.In I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ...:. II I.” a... .I.I7- «Inn 5;”! I.II! -I.II~ -I.III -I.III «I.II! ~I.III oI.III I.III I.III -I.III -I.III .I In t n. as: III III III 2‘: III I.II I III III III M: ' 3', I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 9.119 I.II.- I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. II ..:.. II mu I.III. I.III IJIII I.III I.III 0.105 0.113 I.III I.III I In -I.III IIJI, .I.III I III I III I III .. '5' 2.2 In, 232 III I 2 7 III ' III III III III ' ' ' I ° 1‘2 8 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III mu I.'I1 I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III ...1. )0 c um OIL-.1 .9.I7I 05.509 ‘25.. 5.5“ “J" 0.013 5:0" I.I” "I." I.III «.095 ciJII IL”! oh"! I." .I.uI a I I v I" 2 I In I" a" "I III ”I In "I 'i. v,” a I.III I.III I.III 0.919 I.III I.III I.II? I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. II “I" In I.I-III.- I.III oI.iII .IJIII -I. I“ -I.III “I.III JZII’ -I.I'II -I.III II.III I. III .I.Iu -I.III .I.III I.III 0.... II _I n: 232 I: II III III III III III III n: 0.1.. I.In I.III I. III I.III I.III I III I.Iu I.III I.III I..'.. n mum: I.III. I.III I.III Itiu I. III I.I” «.III IlIII I.III I.III oI.III I.III I.III II.III .I.III I.I I I..." II ”2 III, 2’: III III III III III III III I I 2., I.III I.III I.III I. III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.I” I.III I.III I.III I.III H.,. n .1. Ian-u -I III I.III I.I 7 I III I.III -I III I.I?I I (II I.III I.I? I III I II II I I I In I I ' 2‘: 3;. ° 2!: III ' III III ' ' ‘ ' :3. ' L h. “"2; I.III i,d.0 0.172 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ...:, II I...“ m I.III I. III IIIII -I.III I.III I III IZIII I III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II? I In I.III III III III III 232 ' III III ' III III III III III ' III "1:, I.III I. 710 I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.II! I.II! I.III I.III I.II! I.III I.III I.I” h", l . ' . II I.II": m 0.070 I. III I.III I.II’ I.III -I III I.III I.III -I III I.III I III I III .I III I I I I I "I 1‘ ‘I 3" ° III III In ' III III ' III ‘ III ' III ' . L “"gs I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III 0.907 I.IIi I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III ...u I. ..._ n... I.III .I;III I'III I III I. III I.III i.’In I.III I III I.III I.III I.III II In I I I II '. "I I! ' "I ' I "I III III III ' III III III III ' I ' ' I L 'i' "'3: I.III I.III I.III I.III I. III M"! I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I.III I. I! I.I" Arm-u m u.- vunu‘ Imm- uni-m ‘ I I I I I 1 I no u u II II n III—Iowans. 175 TABLE A.9.—-Correlation matrix for the total Mexican— American sample. ‘.§00 2‘2 0.000 5.73” 3.50, .2\1 01: ’.‘3° “I..1 ".";. 0,030 0.00. _700 200 21' 0.070 0.000 0.108 .l.000 0:000 0.300 0.030 2‘? 232 2‘9 Emu haw tau -0,030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 .070 202 2'0 37 0.000 0.000 0.100 -§.ézi 0.009 0.000 0.017 0.007 0.707 ‘2‘! 232 0 3 -0.003 .if0nn -0.100 -0.020 .0.000 .0.000 .0.000 _270 2 I ’ 2’7 270 2’0 12. 0.000 0.107 0.737 0.320 0.300 0.100 5.000 0.000 -0.00! -o.070 -0.007 .0.030 0.000 00.000 _0‘\ 2! .280 7 001 771 0:: 0.000 0.009 0.070 0.00! 0.0.. 0.900 0.007 0.007 5200- 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 -0.000 o0.007 007 077 200 070 077 077 007 007 0.000 0.007 0.010 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 1:007 0.030 0.030 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.007 00.000 00.037 0.000 007 277 200 270 007 077 007 000 007 07 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.570 0.000 0.300 0.000 0.000 0.070 4:12!!!) .0.a07 3.1.0 0.000 0.009 0.300 0.001 0.000 0.000 00.000 .0.017 . .0: 00 .031 030 0 000 000 007 007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 l;000 -0.001 0.000 0.000 .0.010 0.00: 00.07: 00.01: .0.000 .0.000 0.000 2‘ ' S 0 0 _0. .031 0 .0 . 5.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.777 0.700 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.070 .0.300 -0_0gq 0.000 0.000 0.000 00.000 -0.001 00.000 o0.000 .0.i.0 .0.000 0.000 0.000 0 2 000 000 000 000 070 000 000 _200 0 7020 77 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 -0.i0i .I.0:3 -0.000 0.007 .0.007 -0.000 .0.000 -I.007 -0.010 0.107 0.007 0.007 00.000 0.007 _032_ 730 J 200 00 70 000 000 001 7077 7 0 0 i, 0.000 0.0;: 0.100 0.070 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.000 0.700 0. 00 -¥;3:- 3.007 0.03! 0.000 -0.000 o0.07! -0.000 0.003 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 2.20- 070 730 2 1 0! 070” 070 000 000 03: 077 007 000 000 7'2 0,-00 0.070 0.00: 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.00? 0.000 0.000 -.:07 -0‘041 {.00. .0.c00 0,000 .0.003 .0;000 .0.010 -0.000 0.000 .0.000 oi.000 0.000 -0.007 0.000 oo.017 0.30% 230 a) ‘0 030 7 007 007 _ . 1 , ‘ 30 000 000 077 007 000 000 000 270 . . 0.0.7 0.000‘ 0.800 0.730 0.000 0.310 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 ".170 ‘.a7~ .0,000 0:007 0.000 -0.006 .0.000 .0,007 .0.::: 00.000 00.000 .0.000 00.000 0.070 00.000 0.00 0.007 7.100 .a,e03 770 73 3 0 37 007 080 0 0 77 07 00 0 . 207 737 732 0.007 0.000 0.738 0.700 0.000 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 7.030 £.r00 0,03. .$,00= [2001 .0.000 0.100 .0.000 .0:0:0 .0.000 00.000 0.007 0.000 0.700 0.00; 0.000 0.000 r.03‘ ‘.02‘ £100: 0.030 .000 229 030 7! 030 300 000 077 077 8 0 1:; 201 ‘n 730 230 r.’§h 0.000 0.030 0.7.0 0.000 0.070 0.070 0.007 0.307 0.070 0. 0 0.010 ‘::::!=, 0.0.0 0.0.: .0.000 3,030 0.00; 0.000 0.003 7.000 0.1:! o0.000 0.070 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 r.r7- .070 0_0,a .0.o.r 0.00, 7 i 0 a 7-2 a 230 700. .770 080 000 070 0 000 000 2 0 7‘? 770 23 0' «.000 0.31! 0.000 0.000 0.700 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.777 0.000 0.20. @ 0,03. 0.00xw Illlr IIII 11 «Tufwlnluln 47731» ~1»1»J»1»1» 4» III-IIPIIIll-IUIIL H «\an rnwwfi om wchcmHm .om .om om oH< Hmpwomm .mm om UH< awooq .wm :oHmesnm \0 h- H mmm \‘3 5. r—G mmm OJ (L) HHI-4 mmm OOO Lr\L{\LI-\ HHI—t month 0 m HHH mmm 176 H m H a H H m «H H m mm H a on H H om m : om .Lm:n< szm .mm H H H m H H m 05 H m mm H a a H m om H m om .ommH .HHHom .mm H m H m .H H m 0H H m mm H m on H m om H m om coHHmEOHs< .Hm H m H m VH H m OH H m a» H m om H m on H m on .pcoo chHm .om H m H m .H H m oh H m mm H m on H m on H m cm mcHHmmx nHHco .mm H a H u HH H m wfi H 3 Wm m.o m :0 H m om H : om omcmzu HHmm .om .uCQHLO m Gaza a m H H a HH H J »% m.q m a; 4.3 n so H m om .ngoq «wHHmm .Mw r H H H 3 0H H m H» m.o w on m.a m om H m om .QEH .mHme .mm H H H : OH H 3 HM H I so H a on H : om pczoe< .osom .mm H H H m H» H H mm h.n H QM H.a H em a H om a m HH H ,5 H . H H H H\ H c :m H q as .Howcm ms .mm H u MH ._ H H J“ H H _H H H _m H H cm #:3054 mm .mm H 4 a “n H 4 ( H H J. “.3 H on H m om .Loqu m: .Hm J H d .p a H J“ H H‘ . u an m m on mEoocH an .om . H .n H . Hm H a aw H u on H m om .uHo>< m: .9H . uH H y , H H QH H H a; H : om u::OEH m: .mH pOMMCOD _. up _H “H _; H HH J“ m NH mm m 0H om emcmHgocx mm .HH r. .. : H. .H w u. »a z n; as n on 3w .ucHumomthmm .wH :. .m H ‘, .H H z. .. m an 3m m mm om.ucooumomloHm .mH wjam> I . f H , I-x H ,H Hm wa 3; SJ mmm Sm HQQOP .xa ,. ., H H. An H “H _m HH 0: av HH m: on :oHpoq .MH 2: .s _ x: .H ‘H H: .H 3 HH :3 3H on am m:Hvam .mH .; .a . a: Hy ;« H; g; p m: an HH H: on HnoHHogpogmx .HH .; , .H .: u‘ . .J :H n DH up HH 5: OH .Hm>u HmLos .3H J: .= .H ,: ;_ H H: ;w HH 4: 0H HH an em m>HHmspox .m H: ;+ w . V» g a: H: a H: ax 3H m: om vgmngHan .o mHHnsmpsH unspHHHq H ‘r :1 3 m HJJ -_ Hm Hi”. rm on nHm on Hmpog .N .. ._ a V. L . .4 ‘q a 1H mg 0 on on :oHuod .w 7 _K . ;: .\ H .H m a H: 3H H 2: cm wzHHevu .m A: ‘M n H: y :H H, s H: on o a: on HaOHpazpoaH: .2 , .h . .H .4 M A. H m Ha HA H as am .Hm>m Hugo: .m . A. . v. H _ .. _H m :4 mg n am pm Q>HHzELOZ .m .V :r . :0 , . 4H aw H Hm OH 3 HM mm mquooLon .H Hampcog waspHpHx H a H; H n H» H a an H z ;w H z . :. H,‘ cmHaa HHH pg; avg mmm memem> .nwamfiwu D:m anmE mJHL mazoaw L30; 0;» Lou acoHpaH>mU ULmUCMpm Ucm .mcmmE .m.2nl.oa.< mqm¢9 1T7? TABLE A.ll.-—Item to aubacale correlations for seven samples for the ABS—MR: Arranged by eutecale or level. Itema 1 5 ’ SAMPL: and guy Cfifig; er LEVELS 111 h 21 :3 t3 SEEuEHECEQTbEHR7 s E a Qifi PM? RST {an S E B SEE—PMR RST PNR 1 M1 36 :3 MM M3 29 -6; t« :1 ~ 73 t( 1. :3 M6 M1 53 65 M7 63 53 2 lt 1M 4M 39 4 «7 2 Li Mi Mi :u 70 6M M1 M8 50 M9 M6 66 62 3 £7 32 41 a- “E -3 L3 up 57 ,* “L 73 2% 61 M5 53 “3 MO 15 60 61 M 3: 3; 1t MM 3M 1M My L4 C4 ,2 11 3. 36 13 33 M“ 5M 57 51 67 50 5 53 51 11 3t 33 2: 1. ol :7 2 14 : I: 3» M2 23 21 73 08 27 17 6 :4 35 17 2 H0 32 32 13 cu 5: 2 7 63 b7 5M M2 31 M1 M5 M2 61 7 43 :0 3M 15 1o 64 L7 39 L“ 13 -1< 15 , 1‘ 31 MM 31 5 52 39 55 8 51 50 53 M3 to 58 M2 M7 Mw E 31 51 52 ‘7 71 30 15 19 05 13 M0 9 60 5b 51 U‘ 60 65 51 27 37 Ma 35 71 P7 31 39 40 27 63 57 53 52 10 62 5M 51 MM 71 5t ,7 L: LL 2, , 62 2‘ 50 33 36 20 19 3M 3M 2M 11 51 55 38 3t 61 65 :6 22 36 91 31 69 13 36 5M 21 5o 75 M8 61 63 12 3M 2M M7 22 38 37 29 2‘ M7 33 3x 31 M3 10 M3 50 M5 M9 53 M6 52 13 M3 MM 31 M3 M5 ”8 M7 39 M6 31 25 31 M6 22 M7 51 52 66 31 38 53 1M 58 M« 61 3S u2 :9 £3 3- 5L My rt L3 IO 7 M7 M6 M1 37 55 38 52 15 M1 EL .« 57 M, r: M» 3‘ 34 2 37 5c 36 1o 23 2M 30 32 29 30 26 16 51 M1 M‘ 19 5 23 3‘ 31 1; 48 b1 77 F1 L3 17 29 21 66 -01 25 23 17 -— 23 :6 —31 53 ‘I 22 35 3 31 LC M“ 15 :1 lb 27 15 M6 -12 30 2M 18 M0 MM 29 L4 L2 2c 32 5, M6 32 9; ‘: 5c 5: 3M 33 28 52 M3 27 20 19 :0 33 l7 3U ‘3 L- 3v 3w 3% 2“ 3) {b 33 33 39 37 30 M8 08 18 35 20 56 M0 18 26 33 So 15 27 19 L 12 3 —1M 00 15 06 07 M9 M0 12 00 1 M.S.U. graduate students. December, 1967, N = 85_ 2M.S.U. SOphomore education students. January, 1968, N = 633, 3 , , 'Belize primary teacners. January, 1968, N = 523. “Special education and rehabilitation workers. 178 SAMPLE and SUESCALES or LEVELS 1v v y; s a 5:5 :32 EST 7:2 2 E B :66 PMR EST PNR s E B SER P"R RST PNR 33 S3 “9 3O 7O 50 M3 53 53 63 52 78 37 6M MM 56 63 59 M6 “5 6: M9 :2 75 67 53 M8 M2 70 63 56 61 7M M9 56 72 S9 52 37 ,o 56 M7 71 67 CO 55 :U 71 5, 61 0M M3 M3 M5 M5 M9 M2 52 63 0M 33 7M 70 56 57 L1 78 76 6 51 M3 M5 50 51 M3 68 37 MM 62 11 c2 73 MM M3 M7 66 50 78 55 oo 37 M5 M1 M0 59 26 5) 62 MM Io 61 53 EL 35 5; t3 3“ 39 5“ M9 55 15 M8 57 59 61 67 22 7: CL 74 66 MM 65 M8 62 56 51 M7 M5 37 52 67 M3 61 67 50 50 5M 61 53 37 26 53 Mo 5M 56 MO 5 51 M2 51 Mo 66 63 31 37 61 7M 63 M7 73 63 72 CO M6 37 M2 37 33 23 M9 35 65 53 33 "7 *1 51 M8 61 58 65 55 -- 37 36 59 52 59 32 M8 :7 M5 31 M1 5: M2 M7 6: 62 60 5O 10 36 39 M5 15 63 27 53 13 32 63 56 72 56 50 63 6M 59 58 -- 33 38 3o 58 59 39 M2 M2 M2 69 60 6M 18 M9 2M 52 Mo 51 17 30 -19 12 M0 M3 OM 50 M1 18 51 M7 73 M1 55 58 73 72 50 68 28 M7 6M Mo 39 23 58 M2 3M 63 56 7M M6 53 76 69 63 53 65 36 39 50 60 Mo 2 Mo 60 31 S7 65 6M 20 39 39 39 M7 50 37 33 36 61 68 “2 U“ 07 37 M2 31 M1 Lu M3 M1 71 66 68 63 37 M6 5M M7 63 65 M7 28 M8 25 M5 51 —M6 —06 52 68 56 69 M0 M2 32 M1 29 -5 M9 32 15 -1 11 23 CO -M7 36 M7 M9 55 53 65 1M MO 36 38 30 50 1M 22 -67742M 35 19 51 -02 MM 10 27 M5 M9 52 M8 M2 36 53 5M 31 5Parents of mentally retarded. 6Regular school teachers. 7 8 Parents of nonretarded. Listed serially. See instrument for-actual item numbers. APPENDIX B ATTITUDE-BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS—MR 179 IVIR‘ANS : UoSo ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE- -MR DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statments of how people feel about certain things. In this section you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other;pegple believe that mentally retarded peOple compare to people who are not retarded. Here is a sample statment. Sample 1. l. Chance of being blue-eyed (E) less chance 2. about the same 3. more chance If other_people believe that mentally retarded people have less chance than most people to have blue eyes, you should circle the number 1 as shown above. If other_pegple believe the mentally_retarded have more chance to have blue eyes, you should circle the number 3 as shown below. 1. Chance of being blue-eyed 1. less chance 2. about the same ® more chance After each statement there will also be a question asking you to state how certain or sure_you were ofgyour answer. Suppose you answered the sample question about "blue eyes” by markingabout the same. Next you should then indicate how sure you were of this answer. If you felt sure of this answer, you should cigglg thg number 3 as shown beeow in Sample 2. ngple 2. l. Chance of being blue-eyed 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1, less chance 1. not sure (2) about the same 3. fairly sure 3. more chance {3) sure by: John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University a 3968 -2- ABS-I-MR Directions: Section I MR-ANS: U.S. In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that indicates how other people compare mentally retarded persons to those who are not mentally retarded, and then to state how sure you felt about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions, and It is important to answer all questions, even though you may have to guess at the answers to some_ not sure of their answers to other questions. of them. Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded as compared to those who are not retarded: 1. Energy and vitality (-—-—9 2. 1. less energetic 2. about the same 3. more energetic 3. Ability to do school work 4. 1. less ability 2. about the same 3. more ability 5. Memory 1. not as good 2. same 3. better 7. Interested in unusual sex practices 8. . more interested I 2. about the 3 S ame . less interested 9. Can maintain a good marriage 10. 1. less able 2. about the 3. more able 11. Will have too 1. more than 2. about the 3. less than 3968 S ame many children 12. most same most How How sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly Sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure of of of of of this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? chgr people things about -3- ABS-I-MR to those who are not mentally retarded: 13. 15. 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. Faithful to spouse 1. less faithful 2. about the same 3. more faithful Will take care of his children 1. less than most 2. about the same 3. better than most Likely to obey the law 1. less likely 2. about the same 3. more likely Does steady and dependable work 1. less likely 2. about the same 3. more likely Works hard 1. not as much 2. about the same 3. more than most Makes plans for the future 1. not as likely 2. about the same 3. more likely Prefers to have fun now rather than to work for the future 1. more so than most people 2. about the same 3. less so than most people 3968 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. 24. 26. MR-ANS : U.'6 ,' generally believe the following the mentally retarded as compared How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -4- ABS-I-MR PIR'ANS; U.S. Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded as compared to those who are not retarded: 27. 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 3968 Likely to be cruel to others 1. more likely 2. about the same 3. less likely Mentally retarded are sexually l. more loose than others 2. about the same 3. less loose than others Amount of initiative 1. less than others 2. about the same 3. more than others Financial self-support 1. less able than others 2. about the same 3. more able than others Mentally retarded prefer I. to be by themselves 2. to be only with normal people 3. to be with all people equally Compared to others, education of the mentally retarded I. is not very important 2. is of uncertain importance 3. is an important social goal Strictness of rules for mentally retarded I. must be more strict 2. about the same 3. need less strict rules 28. 30. 32. 34. 36. 38. 40. How sure are you 1. not sure 2 0 fair 1y sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? MR"ANS: U.S. -5- ABS-II-MR .Dizectinns; Section II This section contains statements of ways in which other people sometimes act toward people. You are asked to indicate for each of these statements what other_pggple generally believe about interacting with the mentally retarded in such ways. You should then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other people generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 41. To play on the school playground 42. How sure are you of this answer? with other children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 43. To visit in the homes of other 44. How sure are you of this answer? children who are not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. usually undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 45. To go on camping trips with other 46. How sure are you of this answer? children who are not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 47. To be provided with simple 48. How sure are you of this answer? tasks since they can learn very little 1. usually believed I. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. not usually believed 3. sure 49. To stay overnight at the homes 50. How sure are you of this answer? of children who are not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 3968 -6- ABS-II-MR Other people generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 51. 53. 55. 57. S9. 61. 63. To go to parties with other children.who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved. To be hired for a job only if there are no qualified non-men- tally retarded people seeking the job 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved To live in the same neighbor- hood with people who are not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To date a person who is not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To go to the movies with someone who is not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To marry a person who is not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved_ To be sterilized (males) 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 52. S4. 56. 58. 60. 62. 64. MR'ANS: U.S. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -7- ABS-II-MR Other people generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 65. To be sterilized (females) 67. 69. 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. l. 2. 3. To 1. 2. 3. To usually approved not sure usually not approved be desirable as friends not usually approved not sure usually approved be regarded as having sex appeal 1. 2. 3. To 1. 2. 3. To not usually so not sure usually so be regarded as dangerous usually so regarded not sure notusually regarded so run machines that drill holes in objects 1. 2. 3. To usually not approved not sure usually approved be trusted with money for personal expenses 1. 2. 3. To if 1. 2. 3. To not usually so not sure usually so work at jobs he can do even he has almost no speech not usually so not sure usually so be forced to totally provide for themselves 1. 2. 3. 3968 usual not sure not usual 66. 68. 70. 72. 74. 76. 78. 80. MRrANS: U.Ss How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly 3. sure sure of of of of of of of this this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? MR'ANS : U.S . -8- ABS-III-MR Directignsz Section III This section contains statments of the "right" or "moral" way of acting toward people. You are asked to indicate whether you yourself agree or dis- agree with each statement according to how you personally believe you ought to behave toward mentally,retardedgpersons. You should then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 81. To take a mentally retarded 82. How sure are you of this answer? child on a camping trips with normal children 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 83. To permit a mentally retarded 84. How sure are you of this answer? child to go to the movies with children who are not mentally retarded I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 85. To allow a mentally retarded 86. How sure are you of this answer? child to visit overnight with a child who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 87. To take a mentally retarded 88. How sure are you of this answer? child to a party with children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 89. For the government to pay part 90. How sure are you of this answer? of the cost of elementary educa- tion for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 3968 1. not sure 2 . fairly sure 3. sure -9- ABS-III-MR MR-ANS : U! 6 In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 91. For the government to pay the full 93. For the government to pay the full 95. 97. 99. 101. cost of elementary education for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right cost of a high school education for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right For the government to pay part of the medical costs related to the disability 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right For the government to pay all of the medical costs related to the disability 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To be given money"for food and clothing by the government 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To mix freely with people who are not mentally retarded at parties 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 3968 92. 94. 96. 98. 100. 102. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? .. 10- ABS-mpg MR-ANS In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you belieie 103. To go on dates with someone who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 105. To go to the movies with someone who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 107. To marry someone who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 109. To be a soldier in the army 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 111. To provide special laws for their protection 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 113. To provide special help to get around the city 1. usually wrong 2. not sure 3. usually right 115. To sterilize the mentally retarded I. usually right 2. not sure 3. usually wrong 3968 that it is usually right or usually wrong: 104. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 106. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 108. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 110. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 112. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 114. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly- sure 3. sure 116. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of U.S .' this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? MR-ANS e -11_ . U.S. ABS-III-MR In respect to peOple who are mentally retarded, do you believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 117. To put all mentally retarded 118. How sure are you of this answer? in separate classes, away from normal children 1. usually right 1. not sure 2. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. usually wrong 3. sure 119. To reserve certain jobs for the 120. How sure are you of this answer? mentally retarded I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 3968 -12.. ABS-IV-MR Directions: Section IV This section contains statments toward other people. MR‘ANS : U.‘S . of ways in which peOple sometimes act You are asked to indicate for each of these statments whether you personally would act toward mentallygretarded people according to the statment. answer. In respect to a mentally retarded person, would you: 121. Share a seat on a train for a long trip 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 123. Have such a person as a fellow worker 1. no 2. don't know 3.,yes 125. Have such a person working for you 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 127. Live in the next-door house or apartment 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 129. Extend an invitation to a party at your house 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 131. Accept a dinner invitation at his house 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 3968 122. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly-sure 3. sure 124. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 126. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 128. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 130. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 132. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of this of this of this of this of this of this You should then indicate how sure you feel about this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -13- ABS-IV-MR In respect to a mentally retarded person, would you: 133. Go to the movies together 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 135 Go together on a date 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 137. Permit a son or daughter to date this person 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 139. Permit a son or daughter to marry this person 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 141. Feel sexually comfortable together 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 143. Enjoy working with the mentally retarded 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 145. Enjoy working with the mentally retarded as much as other handicapped 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 147. Enjoy working with mentally retarded who also have emotional problems 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes AA‘A MR'ANS ; U.S.- 134. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 136. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 138. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 140. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 142. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 144. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 146. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 148. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of of this this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -14- ABS-IV-MR In respect to a mentally retarded person, would you: 149. Hire the mentally retarded if you were an employer 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 151. Want the mentally retarded in your class if you were a teacher 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 153. Require the mentally retarded to be sterilized if you were in control 1. yes 2. don't know 3. no 155. Separate the mentally retarded from the rest of society if you were in control 1. yes 2. don't know 3. no‘ 157. Believe that the care of the mentally retarded is an evidence of national social development 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 159. Provide, if you could, special classes for the mentally retarded in regular school 1. no 2. don't know 3. yes 3968 MR'ANS: U.S. 150. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 152. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 154. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 156. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 158. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 160. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? Directions: Section V -15- ABS-V-MR MR-ANS: U.S. This section contains statments of actual feelings that peOple may hold You are asked to indicate how you feel toward people who are men:a11y retarded compared to people who are not mentally toward the mentally retarded. retarded. How do you actually feel toward persons who are mentally retarded compared to others who are not mentally retarded: I. Disliking l. more 2. about the 3. less 3. Fearful 1. more 2 . about the 3. less 5. Horrified l. more 2. about the 3. less 7. Loathing l. more 2. about the 3. less 9. Dismay 1. more 2 . about the 3. less 11. Rating 1.‘more 2. about the 3. less 13. Revulsion 1. more 2. about the 3. less 3968 same same 88.1118 2. 10. 12. 14. How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of of You should then indicate how sure you feel of your answer. this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? MR-ANS: U.S. -16- ABS-V-MR How do ygn_ag§ually_£ggl toward persons who are mentally retarded compared to others who are not mentally retarded: 15. Contemptful 16. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 17. Distaste 18. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 19. Sickened 20. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 21. Confused 22. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 23. Negative 24. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 25. At ease 26. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more .3. sure 27. Restless 28. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 29. Uncomfortable 30. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 3968 -17- ABS-V-MR How do you actually feel toward persons who are mentally retarded compared to others who are not mentally retarded: 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 3968 Relaxed 1. less 2. about 3. more Tense l. more 2.. about 3. less Bad 1. more 2. about 3. less Calm 1. less 2. about 3. more Happy 1. less 2. about 3. more the the the the the same S ame same same 88.1118 32. 34. 36. 38. 40. How How MZR-ANS : U05 0 sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure of of of of of this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? Directions: -13- ABS-VI-MR Section VI circle yg_. This section contains statements of different kinds of actual experiences you have had with mentally retarded persons. If not, you should circle 22. Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded: 41. 43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. Shared a seat on a bus, train, or plane 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Eaten at the same table together in a restaurant 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Lived in the same neighborhood 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Worked in the same place 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Had such a person as my boss or employer 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Worked to help such peOple without being paid for it 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Have acquaintance like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 42. 44. 46. 48. SO. 52. 54. MR-ANS: U.Sd Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between If the statment applies to you, mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly -19- ABS-VI-MR MR-ANS: U.S. Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded: 55. 57. 59. 61. 63. 65. 67. 3968 Have good friends like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Donated money, clothes, etc., for people like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Have a husband(pr wife)like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes I am like this, myself 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes best friend is like this 3 no uncertain . yes UNF‘ a Received pay for working with people like this 1. yes 2. no My children have played with children like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes 56. 58. 60. 62. 64. 66. 68. Has this experience beaimostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant Has this eXperience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly -20- ABS-VI-MR MR-ANS: U.S. Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded: 69. My Children have attended school 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 3968 with children like this 1. no 2. uncertain 3. yes Voted for extra taxes for their education 1. no 2. not 3. yes certain Worked to get jobs for them 1. no 2. not 3. yes certain Have you sexually enjoyed such people 1. no 2. no answer 3. yes Studied about such people 1. no 2. yes Have worked as a teacher with such peeple 1. no 2. yes 70. 72. 74. 76. 78. 80. Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? l. 2. 3. 4. Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. 2. 3. 4. Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? J-‘WNH Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? 1. 2. 3. 4. Has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? l. 2. 3. 4. has this experience been pleasant or unpleasant? l. 2' 3. 4 no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant no such experience unpleasant in between pleasant mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly mostly ABS-MR: U.S. -21- This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers of all persons are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being iden- tified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to everyuguestion. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer you choose. 81. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 82. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 years of age 2. 21-30 39 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 50 - over 83. Below are listed several different kinds of schools or educational divisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education, which one have you had the most professional or work experience with, or do you have the most knowledge about? This does not refer to your own education, but to your professional work or related experiences with education. l. I have had no such experience 2. Elementary school (Grade school) 3. Secondary school (High school) 4. College or University 5. Other types 3968 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. What What is ABS-14R: U.S. -22- your marital status? Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated is your religion? I prefer not to answer Catholic Protestant Jewish Other or none About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? 1. I prefer not to answer I have no Not very important religion Fairly important Very important About how much education do you have? Some rate 1. 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 people are more set in their ways than others. How would you yourself? ' I find it I find it I find it I find it very difficult to change slightly difficult to change somewhat easy to change very easy to change my ways 89. 90. 91. 92. ABS‘MR: U.S. -23- Some peOple feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whemwwn'- possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? ”New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say that are doing wrong, or that they are doing right? 1. It is always wrong 2. It is usually wrong 3. It is probably all right 4. It is always right People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. He do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually they create new jobs and raise the standard of living." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an important job. What is your feeling on the following statement? ”Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree /. Cfiq‘an.~-1-u n-‘u ABS-MR: U.S. -24- 93. Some poeple believe that more local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 94. Some peOple believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 95. PeOple have different ideas about planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? 1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the church 2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents 3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local governmental unit 4. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government 96. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. I have no religion 3. Sometimes 4. Usually 5. Almost always 3968 97. ABS-MR: U.S. -25- I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly QUESTIONNAIRE: HP This part of the questionnaire deals with your eXperiences or contacts with handicapped persons. Perhaps you have had much contact with handicapped per- sons, or you may have studied about them. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with handicapped persons, and may have never thought much about them at all. 98. Some handicapped conditions are listed below. In respect to these various handicaps, with which one have you had the most actual experience? blind and partially blind deaf, partially deaf, or speech impaired crippled or spastic mental retardation social or emotional disorders I Irnthe following questions, 99 through 103 you are to refer to the category I of the handicapped persons you have_just indicated. 99. 3968 The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with the category of handicapped person you indicated in the previous question. If more than one category of experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. I have read or studied about handicapped persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations A friend or relative is handicapped I have personally work with handicapped persons as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. I, myself have a fairly serious handicap ABS-MR: U.S. -26- 100. Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with the category of handicapped persons indicated in question 98, about how many times has it been altogether? Less than 10 occasions Between 10 and 50 occasions Between 50 and 100 occasions Between 100 and 500 occasions More than 500 occasions 101. When you have been in contact with this category of handicapped people how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being with these handicapped persons? 1. 2. 5. I could not avoid the contact I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost of 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 lIMZ. During your contact with this category of handicapped persons, did you gain materially_in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? 1. No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped persons Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit 103. If_ypu have been paid for working with handicapped persons, about *what percent of your income was derived from contact with handicapped persons during the actual period when working with them? No work experience Less than 25% Between 26 and 50% Between 51 and 75% ABS-MR: U.S. -27- 104. If you have ever worked with any categopy_of handicapped persons for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what oppo - tunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, soemthing else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? 1. No such experience 2. No other job was available 3. Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me 4. Other jobs available were not guite acceptable to me 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me 105. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it been altogether? 1. Less than 10 occasions 2. Between 10 and 50 occasions 3. Between 50 and 100 occasions 4. Between 100 and 500 occasions 5. More than 500 occasions 106. How have you generally felt about your experiences with mentally retarded persons? 1. No experience 2. I definitely disliked it 3. I did not like it very much 4. I liked it somewhat 5. I definitely enjoyed it 3968 ABS-MR: U.S. -23- LIFE SITUATIONS This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by circling the answer you choose. 107. It should be possible to eliminate 108. How sure do you feel about war once and for all your answer? 1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all 2. disagree 2. not very sure 3. agree 3. fairly sure 4. strongly agree 4. very sure 109. Success depends to a large part 110. How sure do you feel about on luck and fate. your answer? 1. strongly agree 1. not sure at all 2. agree 2. not very sure 3. disagree 3. fairly sure 4. strongly disagree 4. very sure 111. Some day most of the mysteries of 112. How sure do you feel about the world will be revealed by your answer? science. 1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all 2. disagree 2. not very sure 3. agree 3. fairly sure 4. strongly agree 4. very sure 113. By improving industrial and agri- 114. How sure do you feel about cultural methods, poverty can be your answer? eliminated in the world. 1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all 2. disagree 2. 'not very sure 3. agree 3. fairly sure 4. strongly agree 4. very sure 115. With increased medical knowledge 116. How sure do you feel about it should be possible to lengthen your answer? the average life span to 100 years or more. 1. strongly disagree 1. not sure at all 2. disagree 2. not very sure 3. agree 3. fairly sure 4. strongly agree 4. very sure 3968 117. 119. 121. 123. 3968 -29- Someday the deserts will be con- 118. verted into good farming land by the application of engineering and science. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Education can only help people 120. develop their natural abilities; it cannot change peOple in any fundamental way. 1. strongly agree 2 . .—agree 3 .Atsagree 4. strongly disagree With hard work anyone can succeed. 122. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree wap—I Almost every present human problem 124. will be solved in the future. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree ABS-MR: U.S. How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . not very sure . fairly sure . very sure «L‘WNH How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . not very sure . fairly sure . very sure waI-J How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure How sure do you feel about your answer? 1. not sure at all 2. not very sure 3. fairly sure 4. very sure ABS-MR: U.S. -30- MENTAL RETARDATION This section of the questionnaire deals with information about mental retardation. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 3968 1. 2. 3. 4 Please circle your answer. Which of the following is a preferred method of educating mentally handicapped children: to give the child work he can do with his hands (handicraft, weaving). to place the child in a vocational training school to make the program practical and less academic to present the same material presented to the average child but allowing more time for practice. In educating the mentally handicapped (IQ 50-75) child, occupational training should begin:: bbJNl-J upon entering high school the second year of high school the last year of high school when the child enters school The major goal of training the mentally handicapped is: Dri-l social adequacy academic proficiency occupational adequacy occupational adjustment Normal children reject mentally handicapped children because: bWNH 0.. of their poor learning ability of unacceptable behavior they are usually dirty and poor they do not "catch on” The emotional needs of mentally handicapped are: DWNH a stronger than normal children the same as normal children not as strong as normal children nothing to be particularly concerned with The proper placement for the slow learner (IQ 75-90) is in: 41‘me O the regular classroom special class vocational arts regular class until age of 16 and then dropped out of school 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 3968 ABS-MR: U.S. -31- In school, the slow learner ususally: is given a lot of successful experiences meets with a great many failures is a leader is aggressive In grading the slow learner, the teacher should: be realistic,if the child is a failure, fail him grade him according to his achievement with relation to his ability not be particularly concerned with a grade grade him according to his IQ The studies with regard to changing intelligence of pre-school children indicate that: DWNH as intellectual change may be accomplished no change can be demonstrated change may take place more readily with older children the IQ can be increased at least 20 points if accelerated training begins early enough The development and organization of a comprehensive educational program for the mentally handicapped is dependent upon: adequate diagnoses proper training facilities a psychiatrist parent-teacher organizations The mentally handicapped are physically: O buNr—I markedly taller markedly shorter heavier about the same as the average child of the same age The mentally handicapped child: looks quite different from other children is in need of an educational program especially designed for his needs and characteristics can never be self-supporting cannot benefit from any educational program The mentally handicapped individual usually becomes: L~u>nar- O a skilled craftsman a professional person a semi-skilled laborer unemployable ABS-MR: U.S. -32- 138. The educationally handicapped have: waI—I at least average intelligence superior intelligence only always have retarded intelligence may have somewhat retarded, average, or superior intelligence. 139. The mentally handicapped have: 1. 2. 3. 4 markedly inferior motor development superior motor development superior physical develOpment about average motor development 140. The reaction of the public toward the retarded child seems to be: bUNH s 3968 rejecting somewhat understanding but not completely accepting accepting express feelings of acceptance but really feel rejecting APPENDIX C CODE BOOK 212 CODE BOOK* CROSS-CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD MENTAL RETARDATION: CONTENT, STURCTURE, AND DETERMINANTS John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University July 1, 1968 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0 for a one column no response, or 00 for a two column no response, or 000 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information, Reapondent did not answer, or not Applicable. 2. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column(item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. 3. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. *This code book contains directions for scoring the 3968 version of the Attitude Behavior Scale: Mental Retardation(ABS-MR). It is specifically for the United States sample and limited modifications and/or additions are made in certain nations and/or states. Special instructions are devised £23 each study and must be consulted before scoring that sample. 3968 3968 Scale/Item face sheet ABS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail nation/state Code Book Code 01-19 United States 01- Michigan 02- Kentucky 03- Georgia 20-29 Western Europe 20- Germany 21- Denmark 30-39 Eastern Eurqu 30- Yugoslavia 31- Poland 32- Czechoslovakia 40-49 Middle East 40- Israel 41- Iran 42- Turkey 50-59 Far East 50- India 51- Japan 60-79 Latin America 60- Belize(British Honduras) 61- Colombia 62- Brazil 63- Venzuela 64- Costa Rica . ... 1 r .31.. .04.... ...:!oij... Col. ScaleiItem 3,4 face sheet 5-7 ABS-MR 8 ABS-MR 9 ABS-MR Q813 ABS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail Group No.1 SubjeCt No. Card No. Sex l . . . See Spec1al Instructions sheet for each nation no. identification. Also see Card 7, col. 70, 71 footnote. 2Constants refer to first 35 columns of each card. these 35 columns. Code Book Code Administrggion group4 01 Class sections of to nsu Ed. 200, Jan.l968 l6 MSU Medical class Dec.1967 001 Assign at time of ‘ 9 Administration K.“ r'? \00 Scale 2 Scale Scale Scale plus constants plus constants plus constants plus constants Scale plus constants Scale plus constants Life and MR scales plus contants \IONmwar-d O\U1£~uak)ha H female male N and/or study to ascertain group See Card 1 for nature of .—_ 3See page 21 of the U.S. 3968 version of the ABS-MR scale. 4 See col. 80 (of all 7 cards) for "interest" or occupational group number. Also see Special Instructions for each study and/or nation. 3968 Col. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 3968 Scale/Item ABS-MR Q-82 ABS-MR Q-83 ABS-MR Q-84 ABS-MR Q-85 ABS-MR Q-86 ABS-MR Q-87 ABS-MR Q-88 ABS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail age Educ. Exper. (kind) Marital Status Religion (affiliation) Religion (importance) Education (amount) Self Change U‘IJ-‘LQNH UI-L‘UJNr—i m-L‘LANH UIJ-‘th—J Uiwar—I war-l UIDC-JNy—J Code Book Code Under 20 21 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 50 - over None Elem. Sec. Univ. Other Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated Refuse Catholic Protestant Jewish Other Refuse None Not very Fairly Very 6 yrs./1ess 9 yrs./1ess 12 yrs./1ess Some univ. Degree Very difficult Slightly difficult Easy Very easy Col. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3968 Scale/Item ABS-MR Q-9O ABS-MR Q-91 ABS-MR Q-92 ABS-MR Q-93 ABS-MR Q-94 ABS-MR Q-95 ABS-MR Q-96 ABS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail Child rearing practices Birth Control Automation Political leaders Aid educ. (local) Aid educ. (national) Educ. plan. Religion (adherence) bWNr—I war—b DWNr—t bUJNt—l L‘WNH L‘WNr—i J—‘UJNr-d UI-DwNI—J 2022 strongly slightly slightly strongly Code Book disagree disagree agree agree Always wrong Usually wrong Probably right Always right Strongly slightly slightly strongly strongly slightly slightly strongly strongly slightly slightly strongly strongly slightly slightly strongly Church Parents Local National Refuse None Sometimes Usually disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree Almost always ABS-MR-Card 1 Col. Scale/Item 25 ABS-MR Q-97 26 ABS-MR Q-HP-98 27 ABS-MR Q-HP-99 28 ABS-MR Q-HP-lOO 29 ABS-MR Q-HP-lOl 30 ABS-MR Q-HP-102 31 ABS-MR Q-HP-lOB 3968 Item Detail Rules (follow) HP Contact (Category) HP Contact (nature) HP Contact (amount) HP Contact (avoid) HP Contact (gain) HP Contact (% income) h-uznnha Ulp‘UJNJH* U1¢~uahnpa p‘UJNJP‘ UIC‘UJNJF‘ £~oan>ra U1$~OJNJHI Code Book gee agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly blind deaf crippled M.R. E.D.P. studied relative worked with self HP less 10 10 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 500 500 - + could not very difficult considerably difficult inconvenient could avoid No Paid Credit Gain & credit no reward less 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 75% 75% - over Col. 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Scale/Item ABS-MR Q-HP-104 ABS-MR Q-HP-IOS ABS-MR Q-HP-106 Constant no. 2 Scale I -Q 1 Scale I -O 2 Scale I - Q 3 2See page 2 of the U.S. 3968 version of the ABS-MR scale. 396 (i.e., ABS-MR-Card l Item Detail HP Contact (alternatives) MR Contact (amount) MR Contact (enjoy) Code Book Code U‘J-‘UJNr—i mwar-d mwar—I no work none not acceptable not quite acceptable less 10 10-50 50-100 100-500 500-+ no experience disliked not much liked some enjoyed 1) required here re computer program. Energy - C1 1 Energy - I School work - C tore m)»; N less same more not sure fairly sure sure less same more The letters "C" and "I" refer to content and intensity respectively, to differentiate the two answers to each question. 8 Col. 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 148 3968 Scale/Item Scale I - Q 4 Scale I - Q 5 Scale I - Q 6 Scale I - Q 7 Scale I - Q 8 Scale I - Q 9 Scale I - Q 10 Scale I - Q 11 Scale I - Q 12 Scale I - Q 13 ABS-MR-Card l Item Detail School Work - I Memory - C Memory - I Unusual sex - C Unusual sex - I Good marriage - Good marriage - Many children - Many children - Faithful-spouse-C NH WNW NH H“ inrora M NH CONr—I Nr—l NH WNH Code Book as. not sure fairly sure sure not as good same better not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure less same more not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure less same more Col. 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 3968 Scale/Item Scale I - Q 14 Scale I - Q 15 Scale I - Q 16 Scale I - Q 17 Scale I - Q 18 Scale I - Q 19 Scale I - Q 20 Scale I - Q 21 Scale I - Q 22 Scale I - Q 23 ABS-MR-Card l Item Detail Faithful-spouse- I Care of children - Care of children - Obey law - C Obey law - I I O Steady work I H Steady work Works hard - C Works hard - I Plans future - C C NH NH NH NH NH WNH NH NH NH NH Code Book m not sure fairly sure sure less same better not sure fairly sure sure less same more not sure fairly sure sure less same more not sure fairly sure sure not as much same more not sure fairly sure sure not as likely same more 3968 Cpl; Scale/Item 59 Scale I - Q 24 60 Scale I - Q 25 61 Scale I - Q 26 62. Scale I - Q 27 63 Scale I - Q 28 64 Scale I - Q 29 65 Scale I - Q 30 66 Scale I - Q 31 67 Scale I - Q 32 ABS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail Plans future - I Fun now - C Fun now - I Cnml-(I Cnml- I Sexually loose Sexually loose - I Initiative - C Initiative - 1 NH r—d Nv—I ri—I NH NH M NH N WNH Code Book Code not sure fairly sure sure more so same less so not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure more loose same less loose not sure fairly sure sure less same more not sure fairly sure sure C01. 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 80 3968 Scale/Item Scale I Q 33 Scale I - Q 34 Scale I - Q 35 Scale I - Q 36 Scale I - Q 37 Scale I - Q 38 Scale I - Q 39 Scale I - Q 40 face sheet 10 _éfiS-MR-Card 1 Item Detail Self-support - C Self-support - I MR prefer - C MR prefer - I MR educ. - C MR educ. - I l O Strict rules Strict rules - I Occupational or interest group NDF' ri-t th—t ri-I wNH uNr-o LON.— UNH ONO‘mL‘UNr-I Code Book 9% less able same more able not sure fairly sure sure with self with normal with all not sure fairly sure sure not important uncertain important not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure SER elem teachers sec. teachers parents managers/executives laborers students parents: non- retarded ~A—.--‘.- ..-.¢._ _ ‘ s“—~-+H- ._ E.,—o. .. Col. Scale/Item ll ABS-MR-Card 2 Item Detail FIRST 35 COLUMNS SAME AS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD NO. 36 38 p 39 40 41 42 43 44 3698 Scale II - Q 41 Scale II - Q 42 Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale II-Q43 II-Qaa II-Q45 II-Q46 II-Q47 II-Q48 II-Q49 School playground - C School playground - I Visit homes - C Visit homes - I I (1 Camping trips I H Camping trips Simple learning - C Simple learning - I Stay overnight - C Code Book Code 1 not approved undecided 3 approved N 1 not sure 2 fairly .ure 3 sure 1 not approved 2 undecided 3 approved 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 not approved 2 undecided 3 approved 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure I believed 2 undecided 3 not believed I not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 not approved undecided 3 approved N Col. 45 46 47 48 49 SO 51 52 53 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale II II II II II II II II II 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 12 Code Book ABS-MR-Card 2 Item Detail Code Stay overnight - I 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure Parties — C 1 not approved 2 undecided 3 approved Parties - I 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure Hired only if - C 1 approved 2 undecided 3 not approved Hired only if - I 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure Neighborhood - C 1 not approved 2 undecided 3 approved Neighborhood - I 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure Date - C 1 not approved 2 undecided 3 approved Date - I 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure Col. 54 55 56 57 58 59 6O 61 62 63 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale II II II II II II II II II II 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 13 ABS-MR-Card 2 Item Detail Movies - C Movies - I Marry others — C Marry others - I Sterilized (males) - C Sterilized (males) - I Sterilized (females) - C Sterilized (females) - I Friends - C Friends - I P‘ KJH l0 RJP‘ [Vld h) k)h‘ UJN) “JP“ NJ NJF‘ Code Book Code not approved undecided approved not sure fairly sure sure not approved undecided approved not sure fairly sure sure approved undecided not approved not sure fairly sure sure approved not sure not approved not sure fairly sure sure not approved not sure approved not sure fairly sure sure Col. 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale II II II II II II II II II II 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 14 ABS-MR-Card 2 Item Detail Sex appeal - C Sex appeal - I Dangerous - C Dangerous - I Run machines - C Run machines - I Money,trusted —C Money,trusteo — I No speech- C No Speech- I NH NH NH N NH NH NH NH NH Code Book Code not so not sure usually so not sure fairly sure sure usually not sure not usually not sure fairly sure sure not approved not sure approved not sure fairly sure sure not usually not sure usually not sure fairly sure sure not usually not sure usually not sure fairly sure sure 15 d B ABS-MR-Card 2 CO e 00k Col. Scale/Item Item Detail Code 74 Scale II - Q 79 Provide - self - C 1 usual not sure ‘ N 3 not usual 75 Scale II - Q 80 Provide - self - I H not sure fairly sure sure MN SER elem. teachers sec teachers parents managers/executives laborers students parents: non- retarded 30 face sheet Occupational or interest group mwombwww 3968 Col. FIRST 35 COLUMNS SAME AS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD NO. 36 37 38 39 4O 41 3968 Scale/ Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale III - Q 81 III- Q 82 III Q 83 III Q 84 III Q 85 III Q 86 16 ABS-MR-Card 3 Item Detail Camping trip - C Camping trip - I Movies - C Movies - I Visit overnight - C Visit overnight - I rope N turd t—‘ WNH N ri—t Code Book wrong undecided right not sure fairlv sure sure wrong undecided right not sure fairly sure sure wrong undecided right not sure fairly sure sure 42 43 44 45 46 47 3968 Scale/Item Scale III Scale III Scale III Scale III Scale III Scale III - Q 87 - Q 88 - Q 89 - Q 90 - Q 91 - Q 92 17 ABS-MR-Card Item Detail MR Party - C MR Party - I El. Ed. Cost (gov. part) E1. Ed. Cost (gov. part) El. Ed. Cost (gov. all) El. Ed. Cost (gov. all) 3 Code Book Code 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 48 49 50 51 52 53 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale III III III III III III 93 94 95 96 97 98 18 ABS-MR-Card 3 Item Detail High School Cost - C (gov. all) High School Cost - I (gov. all) Medical Cost - (gov. part) Medical Cost - (gov. part) Medical Cost - (gov. all) Medical Cost - (gov. all) Code Book Code 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure O O '—-l 56 57 58 59 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale III III III III III III 99 100 101 102 103 104 19 ABS-MR-Card 3 Item Detail Food-Clothing - C (money) Food-Clothing - I (money) Parties - C Parties - I Date non-MR - C Date non-MR - I Code Book Code 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 60 61 62 63 64 65 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale III III III III III III 105 106 107 108 109 110 20 ABS-MR-Card 3 Item Detail Movies non-MR - C Movies non-MR - I Marry non-MR - C Marry non-MR - I Soldier - C Soldier - I Code Book Code 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 66 67 68 69 70 71 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale III III III III III III 111 112 113 114 115 116 21 ABS-MR-Card 3 Item Detail Protection - C (laws) Protection - I (laws) I 0 Around City Around City - I Sterilize - C (males) Sterilize - I (males) Code Book Code 1 wrong 2 undecided 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 not sure 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 right 2 not sure 3 wrong 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure [ill ll'.rl|\ll“l‘lll‘ll|l .111 11111 72 73 74 75 80 3968 22 ABS-MR-Card 3 Scale/Item Item Detail Scale III Q 117 Seperate Classes - C Scale III Q 118 Seperate Classes - 1 Scale III Q 119 Reserve Jobs - C Scale III - Q 120 Reserve Jobs - I face sheet Occupational or interest group Code Book Code 1 right 2 not sure 3 wrong 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 wrong 2 not sure 3 right 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 SER 2 elem. teachers 3 sec. teachers 4 parents 5 managers/executives 6 laborers 7 students 8 parents: non- retarded Scalezltem 23 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail FIRST 35 COLUMNS SAME AS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD N0. 36 37 38 39 40 41 3968 Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Iv-Q 121 IV-Q 122 IV 123 IV-Q 124 IV-Q 125 IV-Q 126 Share Seat-C Share Seat-I Fellow Worker-C Fellow worker-I Employee-C Employee-I NH NH NH UNH UNH U UNH Code Book Code no don't know yes not sure fairly sure sure no don't know yes not sure fairly sure sure no don't know yes not sure fairly sure sure 44 45 46 47 3968 Scale/Item Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - 127 128 129 130 131 132 24 ABS-MR—Card 4 Item Detail Live next to - C Live next to - I Party - C Party - I Dinner - C (house) Dinner - I (house) Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 48 49 50 51 52 53 3968 Scale/Item Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - 133 134 135 136 137 138 25 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail Movies - C I H Movies Date - C Date - I Progeny-Date - C Progeny-Date - I Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 54 55 56 57 58 59 3968 Scale/Item Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q Scale IV I O Scale IV-Q 139 140 141 142 143 144 26 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail Progeny-marry Progeny-marry Sexual ease - Sexual ease - Working with MR - f‘ U Working with MR - I Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure O O 'n—d 60 62 63 64 65 3968 Scalejltem Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale IV-Q IV-Q IV-Q IV-Q IV I O IV-Q 145 146 147 148 149 150 27 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail MR VS other- C MR VS other- I MR/Emotion- C MR/Emotion- I Hire MR- C Hire MR— I Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 68 69 70 71 3968 Scale/Item Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - Scale IV - 151 152 153 154 155 156 28 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail MR in class - C MR in class - I MR Sterilized - MR Sterilized Seperate MR - C Seperate MR - I Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 yes 2 don't know 3 no 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 yes 2 don't know 3 no 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 72 73 74 75 80 3968 Scaleiltem Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q Scale IV-Q face sheet 157 158 159 160 29 ABS-MR-Card 4 Item Detail Care of MR - C (national) Care of MR - 1 (national) MR-Special class - C (regualr school) MR-Special class - I Occupational or interest group Code Book Code 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 no 2 don't know 3 yes 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 SER 2 elem. teachers 3 sec. teachers 4 parents 5 managers/executives 6 laborers 7 students 8 parents: non- retarded O O p—d 30 ABS-MR-Card 5 Code Book Scale/Item Item Detail Code FIRST 35 COLUMNS SAME AS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD N0. 36 37 38 39 40 41 Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale I O H V -Q 1 Disliking N I H H V-Q 2 Disliking N V-Q 3 Fearful - C wNH H V—Q 4 Fearful - I N I O H V-Q 5 Horrified N V- Q 6 Horrified I #1 lvrd 1See page 15 of 3968 the U.S. 3968 version of the ABS-MR scale. more same less not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure more same less not sure fairly sure sure Col. Scale/Item» 42 Scale V-Q 7 43 Scale V-Q 8 44 Scale V-Q 9 45 Scale V-Q 10 46 Scale V-Q ll 47 Scale V-Q 12 3968 31 ABS-MR-Card 5 Item Detail Loathing-C Loathing-I Dismay-C Dismay-I Hating-C Hating-I Code Book Code 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 50 51 52 53 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale V-Q V-Q V'Q V-Q V-Q 13 14 15 l6 17 18 32 ABS-MR-Card Item Detail Revulsion-C Revulsion-I Contemptful-C Contemptful-I Distaste-C Distaste-I Code Book Code 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure O O ,_.I 54 55 56 57 58 59 3968 AScale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale V-Q l9 V-Q 20 V-Q 21 V-Q 22 V-Q 23 V-Q 24 33 ABS-MR-Card Item Detail Sickened - Sickened - Confused - Confused - Negative - Negative - Code Book Code 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 62 63 64 65 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale V-Q 25 V-Q 26 V-Q 27 V-Q 28 V-Q 29 V-Q 3o ABS-MR-Card 5 Item Detail At ease - C At ease - I Restless - C Restless - I Uncomfortable - C Uncomfortable — I Code Book Code 1 less 2 same 3 more 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 66 67 68 69 7O 71 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale V-Q 31 V-Q 32 V-Q 33 V—Q 34 V-Q 35 V-Q 36 35 ABS-MR-Card Item Detail Relaxed Relaxed Tense Tense Bad - C Bad - I Code Book Code 1 less 2 same 3 more 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 more 2 same 3 less 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure ABS-MR-Card 5 Cu]. Scale/Item Item Scale 72 Scale V-Q 37 Calm - C 73 Scale V—Q 38 Calm - I 74 Scale V-Q 39 Happy - C 75 Scale V-Q 40 Happy - I 80 face sheet Occupational or interest group 3968 Code Book Code 1 Less 2 same 3 more 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 less 2 same 3 more 1 not sure 2 fairly sure 3 sure 1 SER 2 elem. teachers 3 sec. teachers 4 parents 5 managers/executives 6 laborers 7 students 8 parents: non- retarded 3968 37 ABS-MR-Card 6 Col. Scale/Item Item Detail FIRSTWAS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD NO. 36 Scale VI-Q 41 Shared Seat - C 37 Scale VI-Q 42 Shared Seat - I 38 Scale VI-Q 43 Eaten together - C 39 Scale VI-Q 44 Eaten together - I 40 Scale VI-Q 45 Same neighborhood - C (lived) 41 Scale VI-Q 46 Same neighborhood - I (lived) Code Book Code 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 48 49 50 51 52 53 3968 Scale/Item Scale VI - Scale VI - Scale VI - Scale VI - Scale VI - Scale VI - 53 54 55 56 57 58 39 ABS-MR-Card 6 Item Detail Acquaintance - Acquaintance - Good Friends - Good Friends - Donated to help - C Donated to help - I Code Book Code 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 uncertain yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant Col. 60 61 62 63 64 65 3963 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale VI VI VI VI VI VI Q 65 Q 66 Q67 Q 68 Q 69 Q 70 41 ABS-MR-Card 6 Item Detail Worked/Pay - C Worked/Pay - I Children/Play - C Children/Play - I Children/School - C Children/School Code Book Code 1 yes 2 no 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant I no 2 uncertain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant Col. 66 67 68 69 70 71 3968 Scale/Item Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale VI-Q VI-Q VI-Q VI-Q VI-Q VI-Q 71 72 74 75 76 42 ABS-MR-Card 6 Item Detail Extra taxes - C Extra taxes - I Worked/Jobs - C Worked/Jobs - I Sexually enjoyed - C Sexually enjoyed - I Code Book Code 1 no 2 not certain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 not certain 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 1 no 2 no answer 3 yes 1 no experience 2 unpleasant 3 in between 4 pleasant 74 75 80 3968 Scale/Item Scale VI - Q 77 Scale VI - Q 78 Scale VI - Q 79 Scale VI - Q 80 face sheet 43 ABS-MR-Card 6 Item Detail Studied About - C Studied About - I Worked/Teacher - C Worked/Teacher - I Occupational or interest group Code Book Code NH NH wan-d wav—I \IO‘MDWNH no yes no experience unpleasant in between pleasant no yes no experience unpleasant in between pleasant SER elem. teachers sec. teachers parents managers/executives laborers students 44 Code Book ABS-MR-Card 7 O 0 p—I o Scale/Item Item Detail Code FIRST 35 COLQMES SAME AS CARD 1 EXCEPT FOR COL. 8, CARD NO. Life Situations Scale 36 Life Q 107 Eliminate war - C Strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree Dri-d 37 Life Q 108 Eliminate war - I not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure Dunbar—- 38 Life Q 109 Luck/Fate - C strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree war—a 39 Life Q 110 Luck/Fate - I not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure war—I 1See page 28 of the U.S. 3968 version of the ABS-MR scale. This scale is intended to measure Efficacy or man's sense of control over his environment. See Husen, J. (Ed.)_International Study of Achievement in Mathematics. Vol. I, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. 3968 Col. 40 41 42 43 44 45 3968 Scale/Item Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q 111 112 113 114 115 116 45 ABS-MR-Card 7 Item Detail Science Believe - Science Believe - Poverty Eliminate Poverty Eliminate Life/Length - C Life/Length - I Code Book Code wap—I Dunn-a wac—A buNt—J Dri—a war-J strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure 46 47 48 49 50 51 3968 Scale/Item Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q Life Q 117 118 119 120 121 122 46 ABS-MR-Card 7 Item Detail Deserts/Farming - C Deserts/Farming - I Educ./Change - C Educ./Change - I Work succeeds - C Work succeeds - I Code Book Code wat-d Dri—I «I-‘ri—I war—I DwNH war-I strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure 47 ABS-MR-Card 7 Code Book Col. Scale/Item Item Detail Code 52 Life Q 123 Problems Solved-C 1 strongly disagree 2 disagree 3 agree 4 strongly agree 53 Life Q 124 Problems Solved-I bump—- Mental Retardation Knowledge Scale1 54 MR Q 125 Educating 1 MR 2 *3 A 55 MR Q 126 * Occup. Trainning 1 MR 2 3 4 ; 1 not sure not very sure fairly sure very sure handwork vocational practical practice entering high school 2nd year high school last year high school beginning of school Adapted from Haring, N. 8., Stern, G. G., and Cruickshank, W. N., Attitudes of Educators toward Exceptional Children, Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1958. I 2The correct answer to each item is starred. Seven of the items(starred ones) discriminate well between high and low scores on the scale and also have acceptable levels of "difficulty". These items(126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 139, 140) should be used as the MR Knowledge Scale in statistical analysis(see Harrelson, L. A facet theory analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany:Content, Structure, and Deter- 'minants, unpublished doctoral thesis, Michigan State University, 1969)- 3968 48 ABS-MR-Card 7 Col. ScaleZItem Item Detail 56 MR Q 127 * Educ. Goal MR 57 MR Q 128 * Rejection of MR 58 MR Q 129 Enot. needs MR 59 MR Q 130 * Slow learner (placement) 60 MR Q 131 Slow learner (in school) 3968 Code Book Code 1 social adequacy 2 academic prof. 3 occup. adequacy 4 occup. adj. L‘wNH beater-b bump-0 buNH poor learning behavior dirty and poor don't catch on stronger same not as strong no concern regular class special class voc. arts. reg. till 16 successful failure leader aggressive 61 62 63 64 65 3968 Scale/Item MRQ132 MR Q 133 MRQ134* MR Q 135 MR Q 136 49 ABS-MR-Card 7 Code Book Item Detail Code Slow learner 1 (grades) *2 3 4 Changing IQ *1 2 3 4 Comp. program *1 MR 2 3 4 Physically 1 MR 2 3 *4 MR child 1 *2 3 4 fail if indicated grade to ability grade no concern grade to I.Q. can change no change change in older change if early diagnosis facilities psychiatrist organization taller shorter heavier average look different need special ed. never support self cannot benefit 67 68 69 70,71 72 80 \* Scalelltem MRQ137 MR Q 138 MRQ139* m6140* MR Knowledge Scale MR Knowledge Scale Face sheet 50 ABS-MR-Card 7 M MR becomes ED. Handicapped Physically MR Public Reaction MR Knowledge about1 MR (16 items) Knouledge about2 MR (7 items) Occupational or interest group Code Book Code 1 craftsman 2 professional *3 semi-skilled 4 unemployable 1 average IQ 2 high IQ 3 low IQ *4 varied IQ l inferior motor 2 superior motor 3 superior physical *4 average motor 1 rejecting *2 some acceptance 3 acceptance 4 covert rejection 1 to total number correct 16 l to total number correct 16 l SER 2 elem teachers 3 sec teachers 4 parents 5 managers/executives 6 laborers 7 students 8 parents: non- retarded 1‘ ”or U.S. groups 1-16 only (l.e. Ed. 200: 1-15 and Medical Class: no. 16). 2The seven "starred" items (l.e. 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 139, and 140). These seven items should be used as the MR Knowledge Scale. 3968 "Ill11111117111111