2' 49221)".- 7-1" '22 III 2 - 2 2"2'2' 11' IIII.IIII,~II§II. II "2" 6'22 ._IIIII'2II- - I III III III. , II. II :2 .. 65,22,921 I 'I I «,2 , a, ,I .: I 222' I V II!- . III I III'IIIIII III I A .. 17"2‘2'l" 4,1“ ' ' ,II. I I :-_I IL'I 021,3 2 555$ wII - m I - "I. ‘ ‘ I IIIII '2'2'1‘2II - 2222222. I-II'IVII “22de U ”1!. In.“ ’2 $259,? 22""2' ‘II. .'\‘,'!,I,I:’EL ~211‘X2‘L.“ ,LLJ ‘ 2 .- - 512'}: ‘ :II~'-I IIII' II'IY ,I,I,I1I :c I I 2" I \II'I II ' III;I Ij‘IIIS'uafi' II.II I I. 10%,“; l,I”‘Q,Il\,fl quJ x .I‘I .IL: 12"‘2‘M'I'I' ““2" “,1 «v I ,3, II,I ,I, ”III. "1' “fikiflg'hfil'dlfit'fé‘fiait 33: 0.32:! R I I I I ”I. ,I,II'I"‘ NI 'LI'I 2M9 I,I“I' I I‘ 2v I‘IWW'III' IHIWH'III HAIL 22in 22:13:“? .“I.' HIM." I “I. I'I ImII2 'I'I' _,‘"I II‘I'I‘II‘ , ‘1 “81,4, 1.1- Inf .. "1,111, 3' '."' 21".? 'I';.}« “a“ ""' P; ",2: -' .MIII‘I IQI’III,III 2‘21," I - II I I, 2';II I ',- I” M .4 24,3331; II, ,. I,I,,,_, “61,1”; m I,I,I,I I 535% I ”123:"? '12 2' '2 2'9 "'222'2'I'I'M'H‘2' ‘JI‘Ii'IIi ‘1, 2:21;“ :13? 222V; 22! 22“ 22%;}‘2'223 H I '11: I',I'I,I:Ii2',I'I';,I'2' {WW . ‘J‘ " ,flh'fl'j '3‘?“ 225$?“ 2:1“ 15,2'1 2’“ 8635321 ‘I‘III'I 'IHIIII.“ 41': 'III I II I' '2‘I'I'I'I' I2I' I "I':2'.‘|' I'I‘lllzm',“ 2' 2 2‘1» ,222'! :1" 23'“ 212:2“ I 2223;111:1245.“ 5'12“": 21:2." ‘ ‘J :2.‘ ‘2'2‘2‘2‘2' II ' I ,II I,I'.,HIIIIII ll‘q;i,‘bl I,‘I,I,II. I,I,,I l,I,A, I 4;, 22:1,IrI-I 42! “3,2,“, ,l,,,,,,I:I,I,I,,I,, ,§I II'IgI,I,I, {VISIT I A‘ CI“ 1“ 3;:21? ’u Ixméfi Ifi II ,IIIII 2","\ JEN III, III'fi. (3&3 I III2I| I "I'II'I'I ‘ 2"22'2‘2' V2212” 2" '2'Ii'2'I2fi'p '2‘2 2"": 2'" 'I'II NILE; “",2'2"‘I- *2 III” '2“ "‘21”? I2'II. II '6'“ NJ. 2'2'I ”2222K 'II2I $4,, ,, ‘ I I.»~:I~‘III'II~I III" WI IIIIIN 'mll 2:222'2‘21 II. gfifil‘f‘dz “‘2: m '2'I'I'I-I I',“I,I,1.I' WW? (9,", '."22'2‘ .I‘/22222'm2,12,222" :I.,I.II'I2II'-II"I'2I:I,2' '2 22'1" 'I,'I I“. ”Mug: ' fo'ga '2’2" gykgtx, 2 I' 'I I'2'1IH22'2'2‘2'2'2222" 32'1'2'2'2" “'“Il‘2222'2'24'l ”2"} “‘22 22.222113 I 222:2;‘HS220222'H 2 | ' ‘22III‘IIII‘III'II' >II'I;I§1£'II'1'~' “I? ‘II I “HQ”, I I \fl'x ' ' 2,,2 I‘M" '2' ,I,I,I'I'I'I,I,I,I,I I1, 224,1 2222222222" R‘- "V... I l l,I' In I ~ $2,} I . ,‘ I,‘ 22'2“" I, ,I,2:1,I§:I,,::I,I',I, I225? I'2'I' 5,1, 11",2122 , “imgjqwlwl E22222“. 21552522224“: \Q'IT‘? E511, ié'fi’x 5I,“ ;I 2I""2Ii"2.lIV12122‘22l‘I‘I2'Hd‘k{g 5',‘Ifl‘l,~=‘. "14:1" A I,..II. I,."ll IIIIIII,IIII,EII'I, I, I;I}I'I,I,I ,, (222222"‘2'2é', “£2231 figm,‘ I . II,I‘ (,I,I,I,I,,I,1I "J ,,:_, (I. 213%,) .l III “5,222, 2,:1,,I,;'§% 1.2‘112'2,‘ a; , 2"2 2‘ I 2'I'2‘I'2' '22"? .2222'2'2'2‘ '2'222'2'2'22'22‘2 1'21 Ik‘w 1&5‘2 22$," |' I,22‘I'I2'I2 “2 “2,222, ' ' I“"l, 'I' ”Ni-2222222 '2 IjI'I: 2 k ‘ #2132235?!th (, 3‘: 1".” I 22221,!“ 2 ,I I III I III III 2 221,26 III; I III I,I,.II ‘2'2'12'd21'm 'III, LI'i'IHI ,I IIIM‘II ,, ’,I,II‘,I,I§,I,; ,le I ,x'II,V :22? . ., 11%,??? \ffie‘g I "‘ .I An I I ‘1.)2'122'23'1IJ' ,12‘5 2 .; III I. III ‘ 3', III ' III-Ii IIIIIIIg.j 'IIIIIIII III , "I "III III. 252' III? $35" ‘: 4:221: ' '2'2'H22Ili'fi21222222" I'2'2'2’2""'2'~"2" 22' 2"";2'HI' ""‘QW‘ 2'1'” I 222' 2’2. '- 222*‘H 'L'ggmfikk 2' 322223;" '2"; [ 222222 'l"‘2'\"'2l 1"2'2 """2 II""""I' 2"222'2'25' 22'V'2II2‘I'IIIIII'I'I"'I"2"'§"~ '22 '2'“, 22222221,,325223 2'5?” 'I I; 5 22%‘212232 3,2,“? 2": 2‘12“ 23% :‘E‘fifig ‘L‘W I222” I I2" III.I'III:I III , II , ‘I i I- ' .‘ III'IIIIII'I-.‘IIHIIIIII III .I'“; 2% 'I’II2I‘ . ' I'I‘II'F W I I ”I“ Ifihfi’w‘ ‘ I . 3., 2% I2$Wn "2w| 'I'I‘I I 'I'I :Hl‘ ,Il ,IIIII I _ ,II ,, ‘, ' '2‘ '35}, I : '1 I ”22912291 ‘, "I'2'2' '2‘2"I |2M" I"I""I'I‘222'1Ilj2'2 NI'I '5'I'2'II‘I, ERIK}! II ,\IIII,II ,I'I I‘l'mllfl'fl "II]' I 2'I,I 'IIIIII Imam}, "222' ’212'1" I22'" 222222.: “210““22-I1'21I‘22'2'I‘2‘I 1'2'r2'2 222'2222 “(2,22 II $332M H 22'2"“ .I I,I}III,,II,I .‘II '1,“ 2I2fi"'.$ ,I,I,,:,,,,,I if 2222:2222 ,W, "u 2:”, “23,2 I, 'I'I"n22" I'I‘ I22'I"I"I'I‘ IlII'H' ',.I,II 1,,I, ”249% 222,321,? #222122 2:25:22, '22'1" l2IIl,",I,:,: {22'222l2':‘ IIIIII,IW, ,1, “Mil “,1 w, :32“, '1, M, ,4 $1,312,, $4,: 1,22,, ‘ "22222222.. , 'I '2' V I'-'I I.'2:"~ ”2'2" 22222222 222"'2I|I222I'222‘II2'I ‘2II2II2‘ '2'2 'I'I‘” 2'22, ““2222 $2222 t$222222 2'2“" , 220,22 Ig'ki'e; “#2” "2'2 2'22 2552222222 "292"." I 23‘, I'I‘,2,'.f2';'2.' ,I229‘,2"II' 2_,,2'2]"‘>2I"22 22" I2 ‘I'M' ,IEI I,,.,I,.,,I$I,II, ,I ",,2,I2'1'3: “th Id,"I"I,,1,I, . . I, i 22"'I"'22' ' N"2' ‘ '22II‘2II,I'2 '25,, '2'2'9"'1,'.:2 "2"22'2'1222'22'22 '2'4222'! I," 44'222‘2'1 1,12%in ,I '22'5'2',’ '1: "t, ImwmwwwwII IIMIIMIIMMI III Ii‘f'" "2:322“ ~"'i'I‘ "II“?iIII;,,III,I"I,132,2 2“ '2'} ' " " "I" 22 1"II} ,.., IIIIIIHII III :I I..I}I:1.I,,I~ I'III,:"I‘ .IfI., ,hI,III W“; I 3 ’ “'2 "2 ' .I' «I. 4:1 "’ “13:31:?"53‘: 851': If «.9. r 3:232" Mififlk I: ' 4:. - II ‘ 4'" -i. 'éIfI' A 3,2112 1',l,,I22_ ,2' ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ . , ‘ I , A , if]. ”2:? 2:121",2 H “,l 1,”: I ‘, 2""222"2'2}!2“{} '2] . ‘ “girl“ I, I ,2 III III :,;: ,1 ,2 'iLII' 2.in ‘IIIIJIIIIIIII2II, I I. III}! ‘5 I'I2I'I'I2 ' ,, I,I,,', ,I. .I,'I',I 925-22222, II'II,.'1,I.I,II'2' ,IIII'. . "'1 I'I 5,, "‘2 HI ,‘IIIIW 21"“ ,2",I'I'I 2IQI'I 'I'. WI I I ,"I "‘5' ”'IIII' 1 21.14" 2.", I222: ”II 2 "va 'I I" «$232 ,2, 4'." ‘ " “"I'iI I 7.222%! H'I ,- II I I ' -' V I "In! ":22'()1,‘, ,,, I I, h ‘ ,L [HI I2 III 2:2,};2' I22 ,',,,,,.,,I W12‘1';2,,,',I,,III,2III'22'225' ,Iéfi 92‘, ,I I ,M . . III - «fig: .‘11‘ . I‘ .— ‘4 - (3% 'I"I"‘ 2122M 'I'”I"'I I'I‘Ii‘ I,,II{I 2 22222322, 22222 2' ,9. MI I,I', , ,;_ .I . ,,:II‘ "2'2"" 22",i""' ‘1‘321I‘L'l 2, 2'I",2'2 222 '2; 211222 2' 212221122252 - 2222' 222,3" 21,2)“ II,'I 32M " " 1,“ WI' 22“.“ "I -‘ ' V's ‘II.II,,I,I.VI III, III 2,2 IIT 2222222222 IIII . ~ ,‘I, I'I.‘ '2' 1,, I, . I II 2%,”; $2I,I‘II22212{I,'1I,,,,:,I‘,I"Y222' £32222" 2'12”!) - 24225,?“ 3’ I -Li u." '4 M“ ”£3;- 1‘- “:2“ ‘222' '21; I I I... FE? .fi-“- 4.4 - "'N- ,|:‘ "I "5": 2 "J I '1'2 I IIIIII I'I“‘I"' 2222'” '1, 2,2233%, , 2," "2 ,II I '222" ”2'2”,” 2' II 'I III Iw'i I? . - ’ ‘I‘h III} IQ? '( I ‘2'" {2'5 I512 III .I' .II: I II I. “M", . 4,, fi'H‘ I... I' I . 2 " ' 9 I 1'2.“ . I. i22‘II'l'IEII'22 2""22 'I'I‘2'2IIII2'} I 3 2' 2 V' II: $3.5, III-L 2’ 2 2'“ 2' IS ' I" . 7.2229225222222222" .2332 u ,'l-I,2" , ”WI-2; ., I'_. {III I,.I‘<:,‘,:.§,Iy,,"§§;;: 5,,”2 ‘ . .H'I" I .1... ..‘II”..IIIIII II: III '22 I , . ,III $22KL,‘”I%§;’5‘" III P}... I ""I"2 " R, IV'IQ'I'I.‘."' '2" ’5": “'2'?!” I. 'I‘IIIII'I‘2 I . I I IIfIH-J‘ . 225'2' 'V, " “ 32,1- 7-? I 3:53:23 .7 --.~_..‘ 3 V I ' “(*2 A .I." -‘z 1" *2;:.. -' 2:- A :3“.- 2‘ 3‘4“»"w’r ‘ w, \lHIHWIWIll!VIlW‘lNUIIHIH‘IMIH‘«IINIHIHHI 3 1293 10225 4657 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF REGULAR SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARD EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN IRAN presented by G. ALI AFROOZ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Elementary and Special Education. / a Date 5’” 5’75, 0-7 639 2( Mew AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF REGULAR SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARD EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN IRAN BY G. Ali Afrooz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Elementary and Special Education p 1978 Gglléhbgag ABSTRACT AN ASSESSMENT OF ATTITUDES OF REGULAR SCHOOL TEACHERS TOWARD EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN IN IRAN BY G. Ali Afrooz A society's attitudes toward handicapped persons determine in part whether they will obtain the encourage- ment, guidance, and special education necessary to pre- pare them for socially successful, productive, and in- dependent lives. The aim of this study was to assess the attitudes of Iranian regular school teachers toward the deaf, the blind, and the mentally retarded, and to examine the relationships of certain variables to these expressed attitudes. The present study is part of a comprehensive pro- jectl investigating attitudes toward the handicapped in a variety of nations, differing in level of economic de- velopment, resources, and social characteristics. METHODOLOGY This study utilized three attitude-behavior scale, based on facet theory to measure attitudes toward the deaf, 1Directed by Dr. John Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824. G. Ali Afrooz blind,anuimentally retarded. These attitude scales are revised versions, prepared by the writer, of previous instruments developed by Jordan (1968). Attitude is measured at two of the levels specified by facet theory: the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels. Attitude scores are the dependent variables in the study. Independent variables are age, sex, level of education, and scores on items that measure amount of contact with the handi— capped, feelings of efficacy, religiosity, and orientation to change. Scales were translated into Persian and administered to a group of 313 regular school teachers in Iran. FINDINGS The basic findings of this study indicate that the attitude-behavior scales, modified for this Iranian sample, proved to be adequate instruments for measuring the atti- tudes of Iranian regular school teachers toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. In all cases, the predicted relationships between attitudes toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded and the independent variables of age, sex, education, efficacy, contact, religiosity, and change orientation were confirmed. The findings of the study also indicated that in the Iranian sample more positive atti- tudes are expressed toward the deaf and blind than toward the mentally retarded. It was also found, in confirmation G. Ali Afrooz of previous research, that more positive attitudes are expressed at the Hypothetical level than at the Stereo— typical level. The results of the study gave support to the theoretical assumption that certain aspects of attitude behavior are object—specific and certain aspects of atti— tude-behavior are situation—specific, and that attitude change must be approached multidimensionally. The study revealed consistent positive correlations between the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels for each of the three attitude-behavior scales and also indicated strong correlations between attitudes toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. These findings suggest the need for public educa- tion relating to the handicapped, and particularly to the area of mental retardation. The religious values of the Iranian culture would appear to be supportive of efforts to improve services to handicapped populations. TO "ALL EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN" AND TO MY FAMILY ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Praise be to "ALLAH", the Benefieent, the Merciful. It is not possible to credit all who have con- tributed toward accomplishment of this project. In ex- pressing appreciation and recognizing the contributions of many, the writer would like to give particular recogni- tion to those "special people" without whose inspiration, encouragement, guidance and help the completion of this study would not have been possible. Grateful acknowledg- ment is expressed: To Dr. Charles V. Mange, my advisor, committee chairman, for his guidance and help not only on this re- search but throughout my entire program at MSU. To Dr. John E. Jordan, director of the disserta- tion for his valuable direction and help. To Dr. Edwin J. Keller for his counseling, en- couragement, and his ever available help. To the rest of my committee members, Dr. George Gore, Dr. Barnes McConnel. Special thanks has to be made to Dr. Wolthuis for his concern, and encouragement. To the other faculty members of the Special Education department, especially Mrs. Alonso, Dr. Burke, iii Dr. Henley, Dr. Pernnel, Dr. Frey and Mrs Stevenson special people that I have come to know as personifications of the "helping professionals". Thanks and wishes are extended to all my colleagues and "FRIENDS" at the Intenational Rehabilitation Special Education Network (IRSEN),particularly to Mr. Jim Mulin, computer specialist for his valuable help. I am especially proud to be a member of the "first class" of IRSEN and am grateful to its founder Dr. John E. Jordan. I take the opportunity to extend my thanks and appreciation to all my colleagues, friends and my brothers who administered the research scales and all the teachers who voluntarily gave their time and responded to the questionnaires. Thanks to all my friends and my "TEACHERS" in Iran, especially Mr. Fakhreddin Hejazi, Mr. Lahooti, Dr. Shookoohi and Dr. Kardan for their guidance, encouragement and support. Above all I am sincerely thankful to my parents, brothers and sisters for their prayers, sacrifice, patience with which they bore my absence from home. And to my wife, Nikoo, and her family for their compassion and affection. Chapter II III IV TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Study Need for the Study Definition of Attitude BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH Attitudes Toward Exceptional Persons Attitude Toward Mentally Retarded Persons Attitudes Toward Blind Persons Attitude Toward Deaf Persons Attitude Measurement Facet Theory and Attitude Measurement Validity and Reliability of the (ABS) Scales RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY General Design of the Study Subjects Measures The Attitude-Behavior Scale (ABS) Clarification of terminology relating to the ABS Translation into Persian Reliability of the ABS The Independent Variables Efficacy Contact Religiosity Change Orientation Research Hypotheses Treatment of the Data FINDINGS OF THE STUDY The Distribution of Attitude Scores Notes on the Reporting of Correlations Age and Attitudes Sex and Attitudes Educational Levels and Attitudes Efficacy and Attitudes vi Page 05.54:. 11 15 17 21 26 32 37 37 38 39 39 44 44 45 46 46 48 48 49 5O 52 53 53 59 6O 61 62 Chapter Page Contact 65 Religiosity 66 Change Orientation 67 Comparison of Attitudes to the Deaf, Blind, and Mentally Retarded 71 Comparison of Correlations between Attitude Objects and Between Levels 71 Comparison of Common and Specific Item Scores 75 V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78 Summary 78 Purpose 78 Review of Literature 78 Instrumentation 79 Subjects 80 Findings 80 Discussion 81 Recommendations for Future Research 87 Implications 87 APPENDICES Appendix 1 90 Appendix 2 114 Appendix 3 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY 151 vii Table 10 ll 12 LIST OF TABLES Basic facets involved in a particular attitude response Guttman facet profiles and descriptive labels of attitude levels Comparison of Guttman and Jordan facet designs for attitude items Joint level, profile composition, and labels for six types of attitude struction Distribution of respondents according to age and sex Distribution of respondents according to educational level and sex Reliability coefficients for the ABS forms Distribution of respondents according to ABS-Deaf scores for the Stereo- typical and Hypothetical levels Distribution of respondents according to ABS-Blind scores for the Stereo- typical and Hypothetical levels Distribution of respondents according to ABS-Mentally Retarded scores for the Stereotypical and Hypotheticial levels Distribution of respondents according to ABS scores at the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels, and in the ranges 60 and below vs above 60 Correlations of age and education with the three attitude-behavior scales at the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels (N = 313 for all coefficients) viii Page 26 28 30 31 40 40 46 54 55 56 57 59 Table Page 13 Means, F tests, and significance levels comparing the Attitude-Behavior Scale scores of males and females 62 14 Distribution of male and female re- spondents according to efficacy scores 63 15 The distribution of subjects by sex and by efficacy scores above and below the median 64 16 Correlations of efficacy, contact, and religiosity with the three Attitude- Behavior Scales at the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels 64 17 Distribution of reSpondents according to the amount of contact with the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded 65 18 Distribution of respondents according to religiosity scores 66 19 Distribution of males and females according to their responses to the four change items 68 20 Simple, multiple, and partial correla- tions between change orientation vari- ables and attitudes toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded 70 21 Comparisons of means for Attitude- Behavior Scale scores for the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded (N = 313 for all means) 72 22 Correlations, Eftest, and significant levels between the same and different levels of ABS:VI-DF-MR 74 23 Correlations, Z test, and significant levels between first fifteen items (common) and last five items (specific) of the ABS:VI-DF-MR 76 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Education for exceptional children, or special education, is a relatively new field of professional activities. In the U.S. and most of the western parts of the world, improvements in special education are in large measure due to changing social attitudes toward handi- capped individuals. The change from the use of such terms as "atypical" and "deviant" to the more positive use of the term "exceptional" is an indication of a very basic development in the field of special education. In the area of direct services and the develop- ment of programs for exceptional children over the past decades, there have been vital progressive movements in which such developments have helped to create a more positive attitude on the part of the public toward handi— capped people. The implementation of changes in public attitudes toward exceptional children has assisted in developing methods and programs for the handicapped. Growing modern technology, reflection of economic realism and other social changes raise a considerable responsi- bility and leave little chance for refusal of educa- tionally accountable programs for exceptional children. 1 Today the scope of educational responsibility has gradually been expanded to include all types of excep- tional children. In order to meet the needs of various types of exceptional children, many different types of educational practices and facilities have been created. The handicapped, along with parents of the handi- capped, have used the courts in an effort to assure that what should be basic human rights are not denied because of physical and/or mental disabilities. The population explosion as well as an increase in the number of exceptional children demanding special education heightens the problems of special education administration in providing suitable facilities and trained personnel for the rapidly increasing number of exceptional children. The above dilemma is much more obvious and in need of immediate attention in many developing countries such as Iran where the large majority of exceptional children have been relegated to a most difficult position in the society and are not receiving the necessary atten- tion, adequate treatment and appropriate educational pro- visions. lIn Iran, at the present time, less than one per thousand of the total number of exceptional children are enrolled in some kind of educational program. In the official re- port of 1976 Educational Statistics of Ministry of Educa- tion, the total number of 7,757,638 enrolled pupils in- cluding 6077 exceptional children is reported. According to this report the ratio of exceptional to normal children (footnote continued on page 3) For reasons mentioned above and because of the impact of western advanced educational technology, de- veloping nations are more recently becoming aware of the social and economic importance of special education and re- habilitation prOgrams. In the development of educationally accountable programs for exceptional children in different parts of the world, attitudes have played an essential role. It would appear that in developing countries, planning for any rational educational change or program innovations for exceptional children must include the attitude component. Attitude assessment is therefore an important step in the assessment of readiness for the development of programs and services for handicapped persons. Attitudes and conceptions of the handicapped held by the public in general and particularly by those in- dividuals who have direct contact with exceptional children such as parents and teachers are very important. Hence, it appears that identification and modification of attitudes as they relate to handicapped persons should be of increasing concern to educators and researchers inter— ested in improving the status of exceptional children within a country. (continued from page 2) is about 7 in 10,000 school goers in Iran, whereas an estimate of 10 to 12.70 percent of the incidence of ex- ceptional children from six to eighteen years of age has been accepted by many investigators internationally. On the basis of these estimates, one may expect a total of 800,000 school age exceptional children in Iran at the pre— sent time. Purpose of the Study This study was an attempt to assess the attitudes of a designated segment of the Iranian population, i.e. public school teachers, toward visually impaired, mentally retarded, and deaf persons in Iran. An understanding of different factors or components affecting attitudes and values toward the handicapped is also a basic purpose of the present study. Need for the Study When planning for any rational educational change, program innovation, teacher education, etc., an inevitable stage in the beginning is to focus on an assessment of what exists in terms of both theory and practice. It has been suggested by many scholars (e.g., Jordan, 1968) in the field of special education and re- habilitation that an important area of investigation for researchers interested in improving the status of excep- tional children within a country would be first to find out what attitudinal clusters exist concerning handicapped and/or disabled persons. To date insufficient attention has been paid to the attitudes of regular teachers toward exceptional children in light of the increased demand for education of handi- capped children. As Gardner (1963) suggests, if schools are going to be more attuned to major social changes, attention must be given to problems of attitude and attitude change; central to this concern must be the effect of teacher attitudes on children. Combs (1965) states that some of the improvements in our educational system can be accomplished by spending money, building better schools, introducing new equipment and standards and adding courses of study. However, he also maintains that the really important change (Jordan, 1975) will occur only as teachers change, for institutions are made up of people and it is the behavior of teachers in the classrooms that will finally determine whether the schools meet or fail to meet the challenge of the times. Bayham (1963) reinforces Combs' contention that whatever changes and improvements in curriculum and methods are launched, the crucial factor appears to be the teacher's attitude. Teacher expectation, in itself, can have a surprising effect on pupil's achievement, and the teacher who expects achievement and who has faith in the edu- cability of his pupils, conveys this hope through every nuance of his behavior. Given the interest of universities in the selec- tion and training of educators of exceptional children, and given the need to prepare teachers for the mainstream- ing of exceptional children, the present investigation would appear to be of value. Definition of Attitude "Attitude" has been defined in various ways. Two primary approaches have been used in defining attitude: one emphasizing attitude as a "predisposition" to behavior and the second regarding attitude as "behavior" per se. Behavior has been viewed as spanning the cognitive, affective, and conative domain of the human condition (McGuire, 1969). Most theorists use two cognitive elements in the definition of attitude: evaluation and beliefs. Most of the conceptions of attitudes are multidimensional in char- acter: the affective-cognitive-conative notion is held by perhaps a majority of attitude theorists. The concept is that an attitude is a somewhat enduring system of (a) beliefs, especially evaluative beliefs; (b) positive or negative affect directed toward the object of the attitude, and (c) action tendencies regarding the object and its related objects. Jordan (1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975) and his associates have taken a step toward merging the concept of attitude as a "predisposition" to behavior, to include behavior itself. His concept of attitude-behavior, and the six attitudinal levels, facilitates an examination of the relationship between the cognitive—affective-conative components as well as emphasizing the conative component as the criterion of behavior. A fuller explanation of Jordan's concept of attitude-behavior is presented in Chapter II. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RESEARCH A considerable amount of research has been con- ducted in the past decade on attitude measurement and the modification or change of attitudes. Studies of attitudes related to ethnic, religious, and cultural groups con- stitute approximately 80% of the total. Investigations of attitudes toward specific disability groups, such as the blind, the deaf, ortflmamentally retarded make up about 5% of the studies, but attitude studies concerning the dis- abled in general constitute less than 1.5% of the total (Saunders, 1975). The need for the present study may be justified in part by the paucity of knowledge relating to attitudes toward the handicapped in general and by the lack of attitude research in the field of special education and rehabilitation in developing countries such as Iran in particular. Attitudes Toward Exceptional Persons There have been a few studies considering attitudes toward handicapped or specific kinds of physical disability or mental retardation in specific settings in the United States and a few other countries. Only those studies relevant to the present discussion will be considered. 7 One of the most comprehensive analyses of the attitudes of educators toward exceptional children was con- ducted by Haring, Stern and Cruickshank (1958). They state that the attitudes of the regular classroom teachers with whom exceptional children are to be placed present a vital consideration which has not been explored. These authors further state that the attitudes which teachers have are reflected in their behavior, and influence strongly the social growth of exceptional children. The statements of Haring, Stern and Cruickshank added impetus to the pre- sent investigation of attitudes of public school teachers with whom exceptional children are to be placed and main- streamed. If the attitudes of teachers influence the aca- demic, social and emotional growth of children, then we need to know these attitudes prior to the time teachers are faced with exceptional children in their classrooms. If the attitudes of teachers are unfavorable toward handicapped persons, then means may be sought to change the unfavor- able attitudes. Haring et_al. (1958) found that workshop attempts to modify teacher attitudes (both verbal and behavioral) toward disabled children were more effective where teachers maintained regular contact with these children. This suggests a possible interaction between "information and contact" in relation to attitude toward a minority group. He states: From the reaction of those teachers who had few opportunities for actual experiences with exceptional children, it appears that the threat of having to modify behavior is more anxiety—producing than the real process of change itself (p. 130). The effort of a formal attempt to modify attitudes whether through mass media or a work— shop, seems only to increase the anxiety and to provide a specific focus for the expres- sion of rejection and the development of organized resistance. When specific experi- ences are provided, the actual problems that arise can be dealt with directly (p. 131). An investigation by Murphy (1960) into the atti— tudes of various groups of educators toward the handicapped has implications for the present study. He suggested that a positive correlation exists between how much a teacher thinks he knows about a specific area of disability and his attitudes toward a specific disability. Fenderson (1964) stated that teacher's attitudes toward the handicapped can be evaluated through utiliza- tion of the principle that handicapped persons have a right to dignity, they have needs and feelings, and they can and do grow up. Studies by several authors (Bodt, 1957; Dickstein and Dripps, 1958; Force, 1956; Haring et a1., 1958; Kvaraceus, 1956; and Murphy, 1960) consider preferences for different disability groupings in various specific situations. Bodt, Dickstein and Dripps, Kvaraceus and Murphy, all studied preference for teaching particular groups over others by means of group rankings. In general, 10 the gifted were most preferred while mentally handicapped and maladjusted children were least preferred. Physically disabled children were in between. Bodt found that in gen- eral, physically disabled children were personally accepted as playmates for respondent's children, whereas mentally retarded and disturbed children were not. Dickstein and Dripps, and Murphy, found that where people have an educa- tional specialty (e.g., such as speech therapy), children with a related disorder (e.g., with speech pathology) are most preferred as a student group. In general, there was a tendency to prefer to work with those best known. Re- spondents included teachers, principals, and speech therapists in addition to students. Researchers who have investigated the attitudes of normal members of society toward disability have reported a general lack of acceptance of this group. Barker, Wright, and Meyerson (1953) in an exhaustive review of the literature, summarized the characteristics of the attitudes that non-disabled individuals have toward handicapped persons and the attitudes the handicapped have toward themselves. The findings were based mainly on studies of attitudes toward special groups such as the blind, the deaf, or the mentally retarded. The summary indicates that the attitudes of other individuals toward handicapped persons are mostly unfavorable, as are the attitude of the handicapped toward themselves. Jordan 11 (1968) in his eleven nation study of attitudes reported similar findings in this regard. Force (1956) attempted to determine the social position of physically handicapped children among normal peers. He found that the handicapped children are not as well accepted as normal children at the elementary school level. Warren and Turner (1966) have reported rank order data on disabilities, indicating that the most visibly handicapped are least socially acceptable. Generally, the non-handicapped individual enjoys the greatest social acceptability. Attitude Toward Mentally Retarded Persons One of the most comprehensive early studies en- countered in the literature in the area of mental retarda- tion was conducted by Greenbaum and Wang (1965) who in- vestigated the attitudes of several groups that have direct contact with the mentally retarded at significant times in their lives. These authors administered a twenty- one scale (the semantic differential) measuring conceptions of four terms describing mental retardation ("idiot," "imbecile," "moron," and "mentally retarded") and three 1:erms describing mental illness ("mentably ill," "emo- 1:ionally disturbed," and "neurotic") to over 300 adult Inespondents who were selected from among the following four LPOIPulations: (a) Parents of mentally retarded children 12 (100); (b) Professional experts who were likely to advise or treat the mentally retarded (55 vocational counselors, 12 high school teachers of the mentally retarded, 25 school psychologists, and 13 physicians); (c) potential employers of the mentally retarded (68 executives); and (d) para- professional employees (37) and volunteers (26) who worked with institutionalized mental retardates. Nine of the twenty-one items 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); factors found by Osgood, Suci, Tannenbaum (1957) through factor analytic work on semantic differential data to most consistently and prominently des- cribe the semantic Space in which terms and concepts may be ordered in general. The remaining twelve items 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 positive attitudes than both the professionals and the employers — the latter had the most negative attitudes of the groups measured while the professionals had a signif- icantly more positive score than the employers on the Evaluative factor only. 13 It was found that the general structure of con- ceptions of the mentally retarded was the same for all groups. 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 ambiva- lent on the Evaluative factor. In addition, it was found that all groups had a more negative 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 concepts of mental retardates than males; this latter finding, however, may have been confounded by the sexual composition of the various groups; (c) there was a non-significant trend for older subjects to hold more positive images of the retarded than younger subjects. Semmel (1959) explored the relationship between the attitudes of 40 regular and 27 special education teachers and the knowledge variable. Semmel employed a 48 item questionnaire, 32 items of which were factual and 16 of which measured attitudes toward retardation. Analysis of mean scores revealed that the special teachers had signif- icantly more knowledge concerning mental deficiency than 14 did regular grade teachers; however, both groups showed an equally high positive attitude score. Semmel concluded that his research "questions the implied relationship be- tween correct information and positive attitudes toward the retarded (p. 573)." These findings may have been con— founded, however, by the fact that proportionally more womenanuithree times as many teachers with ten or more years experience existed among his regular teacher group than in the special educator group. It is also not clear what facets or levels of attitudes were being measured. Begab (1970) sampled 288 graduating students and 279 entering students from seven schools of social work to study the effects of differing educational experiences on social work students' knowledge and attitudes toward mental retardation. The author found that how rather than how much one learned was the most important factor whether in— formation was absorbed and integrated into attitudes. Students at schools that provide field experience and con- tact with mental retardates showed greatest change. Begab concluded that direct contact influences attitudes toward the extremes; those with no contact at all derive their attitudes from prevailing cultural values and beliefs. Knowledge, attitudes, and client preferences (termed action tendencies by the author) do not correlate except when affective learning experiences, as in field instruction, are involved. Formal class instruction has 15 limited impact. Feelings are what motivate learning and behavioral change. Gottliebl (1973) investigated attitudes of regular elementary and secondary school teachers, parents of men- tally retarded and special education and rehabilitation personnel toward mentally retarded persons in Colombia. He found that the independent variablescxfknowledge about mental retardation, efficacy, educational planning, and religiosity failed to be adequate "single" predictors of attitudes toward retarded persons. Multiple groupings of these variables were more adequate predictors. Gottlieb noted that the respondent's values and quality of contact with the retarded served as more predictive determinants of attitudes. Gottlieb found significant differences between men and women. Colombian men indicated more favorable attitudes toward retarded than colombian women. The author found that parents of the mentally retarded revealed the most favorable attitudes, followed by special education and rehabilitation personnel, regular elementary teachers, and regular secondary school teachers. Attitudes Toward Blind Persons The first things one notices about attitudes toward blindness and blind people is that although there have lGottlieb's study of attitudes toward mental retardation in Colombia is one of a number (see references) of cross-cul— tural investigations currently under way at MSU under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan. The present study is in— cluded in the series. l6 always been only a comparatively small number of blind persons they attract more attention and have more agencies serving them than any other handicapped group, including those with handicaps that are more widespread and more disabling. Siller (1970) in the report of a recent in— vestigation of attitudes toward the disabled observed that: blindness appears to have a unique position with respect to other kinds of physical dis- abilities. There is a personal relevance and immediacy to blindness that is much stronger than is true for other conditions (p. 54). One of the most common reactions of sighted people to even the most superficial contact with a blind person is a feeling of pity and sympathy, a feeling often expressed in highly sentimental terms. Perhaps because pity is the socially accepted reaction not only to blind people but also to most other kinds of physically disabled people, one finds it as an underlying factor in most of the attitude studies toward blindness recorded in the literature. The desire to avoid contact with blind people often becomes a general rejection of them in many areas of daily life. Murphy (1961) in his study asked educators to rank categories of exceptional children according to those they would most prefer to teach and those they most understood. He found that the great majority of the respondents not only placed the visually handicapped child on the rejection end of the continuum, but also signified that they knew 17 very little about these children in comparison to those having other types of disability. In another study conducted by Nikoloff (1962), elementary and secondary school principals were questioned about whether they would accept certain kinds of disabled individuals as student—teachers and as full—time teachers in their schools. Of the five categories of disability (blind, deaf, crutch, stutter, and artificial limb), listed on the questionnaire, those in the category "blind" were the most often rejected, although those in the "deaf- ness" category were rejected nearly as often. Monbeck (1973) in his study of attitudes toward blindness and blind people indicates that although the number of blind beggars is too often small, it is the image of the beggar that is most commonly called to mind by the words "blind man". It is not surprising that the blind beggar is so conspicuous, for it is his business to be noticed and to be instantly recognized as useless, unable to work, and worthy only of pity. The ordinary, average blind person on his way to work or out shopping is only rarely noticed and al- most never remembered (pp. 8-9). Attitude Toward Deaf Persons Elser (1959) attempted to determine to what extent hearing handicapped children were accepted, isolated, or rejected by their normally hearing classmates. In the attempt to analyze the meaning of "acceptance" in a class- room situation, the following areas were identified: (a) the friendship patterns of children, their intimate 18 associates; (b) the reputation or social status a child enjoys among his peers, in which favorable and unfavorable traits are attributed to them; and (c) the area of self per- ception or the individual's awareness of his own status in the group of which he is a member. The results showed the hearing handicapped were not accepted as "average" by their classmates. As to friend- ship, the hearing handicapped were not as well accepted as the non-handicapped average of their groups. The results as to reputation indicated that as a group they did not enjoy as good a reputation as the average of the class. Murphy, Dickstein and Dripps (1960) studied the attitudes of several groups of youth specialists toward hearing handicapped children and compared these attitudes with those held toward other types of exceptional children. They used a scale using eight categories to include: the hearing handicapped, the visually handicapped, the mentally retarded or slow learners, the emotionally disturbed, the physically handicapped, the gifted, the speech disordered, and the deliquent. The question items were: 1. Which type of exceptional child would you most prefer to teach? 2. Which type of exceptional child would you least prefer to teach? 3. Which type of exceptional child do you know most about? K. . r 19 4. Which type of exceptional child do you know least about? Each respondent was asked to rank order his selection of each category as he answered each question. The rating scale used was based on a procedure suggested by Kvaraceus (1956). Their findings indicated that the deaf ranked quite low on the "teaching preference" variable by respondents included in the study with the exception of one group of speech therapists. The respondents were college freshmen studying to become teachers, elementary classroom teachers, elementary school principals, special school personnel, and Speech therapists. Cowen, Rockway, Bobgrove, and Stevenson (1967) re- ported on a network of three studies each contributing to the development of an attitudes to deafness scale. In the first study the 30 items originally used in an attitudes to blindness scale were recast and adapted to a scale for deaf- ness by substituting the terms "deafness" for "blindness" and a "deaf person" for a "blind person". In addition 20 items were written, each reflecting an attitude toward deaf- ness or deaf persons. These were based on statements the investigators found in the literature. It was stated that these included propositions which had no empirical base and which reflected mostly the prejudgments and stereotypes of a particular observer. The items included agreement with 20 the given proposition indicating either a positive or nega- tive attitude toward deafness. The items were then given to a group of judges (two advanced clinical psychology students, two Ph.D. clinical psychologists, and one psychiatrist) who were asked to indicate whether agreement with each reflected a positive or negative attitude to deafness or did not relate to the question of attitudes to deafness. There was 100% agreement on 18 out of the 20 items and 80% on the remainder. The total of 50 items were then given to 100 psychology students. They were presented in a 4-point Likert type framework of strongly or mildly agree or strongly or mildly disagree. No neutral point was included. Results were item analyzed. Twenty-five items were then selected primarily on the basis of discriminating power, with item test correlations ranging from .43 to .83. In the final array the 25 items included 21 items in which "agreement with" indicated a negative attitude to deafness and 4 in which "agreement with" indicated a positive atti- tude to deafness. This 25 item scale was then given to a second sample of 160 psychology students for the purpose of cross valida- tion. Results indicated a reasonable stability in the dis- criminating power of the 25 item test. Poulos (1970) designed a study to examine the re- lationship of certain variables to deafness and to assess 21 the attitudes of teachers of the deaf, regular school teachers, mothers of deaf children, manager-executive and mothers of non-deaf children toward deafness. Poulos used a revised version of the ABS—MR in- strument as developed by Jordan (1967) as it related to multi—national study of attitudes toward physical, mental, emotional, and racial-ethnic differences to measure atti— tudes toward deaf. Poulos found that, value, knowledge, contact, and certain demographic variables were limited pre- dictors of attitudes toward the deaf. He noted that reg— ular school teachers and manager-executives rendered con- sistently high reliabilities throughout the study. Attitude Measurement The concept of attitude has played a major role in the history of social psychology. The interest of re- searchers in fact-collecting and statistical methods has resulted in a rapid advance in the empirical study of atti- tudes, with the result that attitudes today are perhaps measured more successfully than they differentially define. Attitude scales as reported by Stern (1963), have been used, as suggested by Watson in 1925, in the surveying of public opinion in general, and later in such opinion surveys as the Gallop Poll. In opinion surveys there is less emphasis placed on a "reliable" measurement of in- dividuals. In contrast to opinion polls, attitude scales attempt to reliably test the attitude of each individual. 22 Prior to 1928 attitude testing had been generally confined to simple questionnaires. According to Cronback (1949), these reflected obvious weaknesses in the lack of evidence that the separate questions measured the same attitude, and the arbitrary nature of the units of measure- ments. Thurstone (1928) developed a scale which consisted of 20 or more statements representative of several degrees of opinion. The method represented attitudes toward an object as being arranged on a continuous scale, ranging from highly acceptable or favorable toward the object, to the opposite extreme of highly unfavorable. Thurstone's 20-item scale had the respondent indicate those statements to which he agreed. The statements had preset scale values ranging from 0, most unfavorable, through 5.5 for neutral statements and to 11.0 for most favorable. The score for the respondent is the median score of all the values of statements he chose. Murphy, Murphy and Newcomb (1937) stated in evaluat- ing the Thurstone method that "no scale can really be called a scale unless one can tell from a given attitude that an individual will maintain every attitude falling to the right or to the left of that point..." Measurements are not as easy as black and white. Thurstone's technique of scaling involved three steps: involving the preparation of items; sorting of statements by judges and scaling; and testing for relevance. 23 Likert's technique (1932) for constructing attitude scales centered around the collection of possible state- ments which had been presented on a trial test to many sub- jects. The items were scored and each item correlated with the total test. Those items that did not correlate with the total score were discarded. Ambiguous items and those that were not of the same type as the rest of the scale were eliminated through this internal-consistency procedure. In the final scale, each respondent indicated his reaction to a statement; usually on a five point scale: Rating for Rating for favorable unfavorable statements statements Strongly Agree SA 5 1 Agree A 4 2 Undecided U 3 3 Disagree D 2 4 Strongly Disagree SD 1 5 A favorable attitude was indicated by a high score and scores were interpreted on a relative basis which differed from Thurstone's absolute system of units. Edwards and Kenney (1946), in a comparison of these two tests, indicated that the factors which made invalid "self reports" were present in both. ReSponse sets influence the score in the Likert tests which tended to lower the validity, whereas in the Thurstone, because the directions required one to check the several statements with which he most agreed, there was no influencing effect due to response 24 set. The Thurstone test was not as diagnostic as the Likert which required a response to every item thus en- abling an item analysis to obtain a picture of reaction to specific questions. The most frequently used attitude scales are the Thurstone, Likert, and Guttman methods of scale construc- tion. Guttman's method (1944, 1947) is based upon the idea that items can be arranged in such an order that a person who responds in a positive way to any particular item would respond similarly to all other items having a lower rank. Consequently, if items can be arranged in this manner they are "scalable". In the development of a scale following this theme, a number of items about the attitude object are composed, and the array of items is administered to a group. The responses are analyzed to determine whether they are scalable. Shaw and Wright (1967) point out that since a given set of items may be scalable for one popula- tion but not for another, it is essential to check the "scalability" before Guttman scales are used with a popula- tion other than the one used for development. McNemar (1946) was critical of attitude tests being used without their validity having been first established. This lack of validation in tests used was due to the in- ability of the test originators to find adequate criteria for comparison. 25 To check on verbal expressions of attitudes as to whether they are honest and real, one needs to check them against outside criteria; one way is to check the results against the results of a group with known attitudes. Cronbach (1949) points out that attitude tests are more likely to be valid when the respondents have no motive to conceal their true attitude. The question of intensity of attitude is a factor of great importance in the interpretation of scores in the range of favorable to unfavorable rating. Neutral scores have been difficult to interpret, as a score between the two extremes may be due to indifference, or the respondent may be acquainted with the attitude object, or he may have conflicting feelings about the point in question. These questions dealing with intensity which were raised early in the use of attitude scales, need to be considered if scales are to be used extensively. It is difficult to reason from a general attitude that an individual holds the same opinion of all phases of an attitude object. Shaw and Wright (1967), in speaking of the dimen- sions of attitudes, list the following characteristics: 1. The concepts that underline attitude are evaluative in nature and specify some de- gree of "preferability" which is dependent upon the goal orientation of the conceiver. 2. Attitudes are construed as varying in quality and intensity on a continuum--positive through neutral to negative. 3. Attitudes are learned. 4. Attitudes have specific social referents... 26 5. Attitudes possess varying degrees of inter- relatedness to one another. 6. Attitudes are relatively stable. Since 1950 a numberapomnoucfl Np poanSm No pHo>o Np III aboum III o>flumummfioo Hp m.uowm95m Ho mwflaon HQ III HOH>m£on msosmnoucfl MOH>mnoQ III m.u:ouomom ucouwmom m.poonnsm III cmfiupso 0 3 AHOH>man AmE\ocHEV pmw>ov Hmcoflpwuomo No coflpomuopcfl NU mawm No oocofluwmxw NQ maom mm accepmnuoman Ho QOmHumeoo Hp muoauo Ho wwflawn HQ wnwapo Hm Hofl>mson uofl>mcwn m.n0pom QsoumMOch mo :flmEOQ m.Houo< Mouoé pcohomom acouomom cmpHOb cmflwom soapwummp< cmpHOb EH muwomm mEmuH op5pflupm mow mcmflmom pooch GMCHOb pew cmfipuso mo cemflummfioo .m wanna 31 .m mHQoB mo mpmomm co pommmm QOHHom HMEOmem No Np No me mm m a E m H m mcHHmom HMGOmHom Ho Np No mm mm a H E m H m QOHDoc HMOHDGLD log»: chomuom Ho mp mo HQ mm c a E D H e EOHpmsHm>o HmuoE HMCOmHmm Ho mp Ho HQ mm a a o Q a m EH0: HmpoHoom Ho mp Ho HQ Hm a H 0 Q o m omhpomuwpm HopmHoom Ho Hp Ho HQ Ho 3 o o Q o H EHwB o>HumHHome Eoummm . Emummm Hw>mq Ho>mq mpsquu4 HmcoHHHchoQ we mHHmoum HMQOHuwuoz wn mHHmoum lemme mHmomQDm m.coHp05Hum mpspHuu¢ mo modme me MOM mHonq pew .coHpHmOQEOU oHHmonm .Ho>mq DGHOh .v mHQMB 32 objects (both personal and conceptual objects). These possible levels (the six agreed-upon levels are provided in Table 4) form what Guttman and Jordan have labeled joint struction; i.e., the structioning that occurs across attitude levels for all possible attitude objects. The researcher may assess attitudes at any or all of these joint structioned attitude levels for any attitude object. And the researcher may assume that the individual respondent or group of respondents will provide different responses to the same item dependent upon which joint level the ques- tion is presented. Figure 1 provides the mapping sentence for the final scale developed by Jordan (1968): Attitude- Behavior scale-mental retardation (ABS-MR). For the present study the author has adapted and revised two levels of Jordan's (1968) six level attitude scale. These levels are social stereotype, level 1 and personal hypothetical, level 4 and they were used simultaneously in order to assess attitudes toward blind, deaf, and mentally retarded persons. Validity and Reliability of the (ABS)_Scales Jordan (1970) reports the results of an early study using the ABS-MR in which three groups were studied: (a) 88 Michigan State University graduate students in a course on medical information; (b) 633 regular education students; and (c) 523 elementary school teachers in Belize. All three groups yielded the simplex approximation pattern: 33 .cowumutmumx Fmpcmz-mpeum Low>mcwm -wvzuwuc< ozu mtsuoatum op uwm: muwumu cowuoatum one: omcoqmwm ucm ._mtmum4 .uc_on wca mo mocwucmm mc_aqmz <-..H mt:m_u sow; mp w>_ummoa mx —mtow>m;mnu_mo_mxza me .xuwmcmucw Ezwcme NH Anew oucmpm>v Fmtusm: mx cur: Haw—Hammwu pmauow NH m>wuowmem N_ 30H FF m>wummwc P; Alli amuwucm; vmu:n_tuum _H m>muwcmoo _H xu_mcmu:H mocm_m> —m>mn «wage wmxp “Hack A: 3: A3 :1 onHuzmem moo: mmZOammm mcoHHMFmL anotm Atmucoomm me apwscc new xmm Ne cowum_m_mw_ ucm wtmw_m3 .;u_mm; we Acw vmutmumt pewsxo_qsm me xH_mu:ms m m 8.5835 we 9: Ste wu_ammu ; zo~ m :owumwtomg » “newzuv mo mmacoma m: Accumummmsm anume mm Amcw>_o>cwv mco_umpmt nacho heme_na we ob uomamwt cow: F; c _ Ev Low; Hm mummtu chomtmq Fe mmeOLa :o_um:Fe>m mocmutome_ meowumzuwm mew; 2: 2: E onHusmHm Lmzwn Louum \mc_E~ utw>o m Np_m:o_uwtwmo mm AmvuomemucH Nu asp e_mm No Louom mgp mucmwtw xm ma mm; on: eHmm Fm Aou mmuzawtuun NFFSUWDmsuomN; Fm Amvmtmmeoo He pmgp mtwguo Po mw>-m-mw> wow—mo Fa mtmcuo m pumflazmv Lo_>m;mm m.LOuo< Low>mnwm . mo :wmeoa Louu< to_>ocmm acetwcmm acmtocwm E 2: 8v 3: 3: onHusmHm thOd 34 .97 for the graduate students, .94 for the regular educa— tion students, and .85 for the Belize teachers. From the principle of continguity, which predicts that items closer Semantically should also be closer statistically, Guttman postulated the "Simplex" construct. A simplex is defined by Guttman (1954) as "set of scores that have an implicit order from least complex to most complex." The investiga— tions of Foa (1958, 1963), Guttman (1961), and Jordan (1968, 1971) support the simplex hypothesis. Poulus (1970) developed the Attitude-Behavior Scale- anf and his data yielded a simplex approximation for all groups, running from .83 to .93. Frechette's (1970) study of attitudes of French- and English-speaking Canadians to- ward West Indian immigrants yielded simplex approximation patterns ranging from .54 to .91; the best order matrix value ranged from .76 to .93. Williams (1970), using the ABS:BW/WN scale, found hypothesized simplex scores of .73 to .90. According to Brodwin (1973), as the ABS is revised, closer approximations to the perfect simplex result. A more recent development in the Attitude-Behavior Scales has been the "drug scale" developed by Jordan, Kaple and Nicholson (Kaple, 1971). The simplex results from this scale have been the most successful. Kaple's (1971) study used further refinements in the ABS scale: this simplex approximations not only exceeded all of the other ABS re- sults but approached 1.00, a theoretically perfect simplex. Other forms of testing the validity of the ABS series of scales have also been applied. The content validity of the ABS scale can be assumed since items (situations) are evolved in cooperation with practicing professionals in the field of interest, and the known group method of determining validity has been regularly utilized (Jordan, 1971). Furthermore, facet theory guides the selec- tion of items and thus helps insure that the item universe was sampled (Jordan, 1970). Finally, the construction of the Attitude-Behavior Scales in general has been based on facet theory and therefore selection of items follows a systematic a priori method instead of by the method of in— tuition or by the use of judges (Jordan, 1970). Every item on every level of a form of the ABS corresponds to a combination of elements of each and every facet. Very recently Bedwell's (1977) study on construct validity of the metatheory of facets applied to attitude measurement, supported the construct validity of metatheory of facets and he concluded that facet theory is a useful tool for specifying research design, and in a priori structuring of the relationship. Standard reliability procedures have also been applied to the Attitude-Behavior Scales. Reliability co- efficients for the ABS-MR and the ABS-BW range between .70 and .95 (Jordan, 1971; Morin, 1969). Hoyt's method (1969) is usually used for measuring reliability. It 36 produces a coefficient similar to the Kuder Richardson 20 measure of internal consistency. Besides Hoyt's method, Alpha coefficient has been equally used for assessing re- liability. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY General Design of the Study The data for this study consist of the responses of 313 teachers from Iran to a 146 item questionnaire (see Appendix A). The questionnaire has two basic components: the first 120 items measure attitudes to the deaf, blind, and the retarded; the remaining items measure a variety of factors including factual information about the respondents as well as certain values and opinions which they hold. In this study attitudes toward the three disability groups are the dependent variables; the various factors measured by the second part of the questionnaire are the independent variables. Thus, the major hypotheses of this study are in the form of the prediction of relationships between the various independent variables and attitudes toward the deaf, the blind, and the mentally retarded. In addition, three hypotheses are concerned with theoretical issues relating to attitudes toward handicaps and the measurement of attitude, as will be explained below in the discussion of the hypotheses. 37 Subjects The subjects of the study consisted of a sample of school teachers in Iran. Teachers were chosen as a group primarily because of the fact that teachers have been widely used in other studies of the attitudes of various national groups toward the handicapped. In addition it was assumed that teachers would have sufficient acquaintance with the handicapping conditions and with the purposes of survey research to reSpond in a meaningful way to the questionnaire, and at the same time would be a group who probably share the cultural values of a major portion of the Iranian population. Finally teachers were chosen because of their essential role in the mainstreaming program which Iranian authorities in the field of special education have been advocating. It was not feasible to draw a random sample of Iranian teachers. Instead, questionnaires were distributed to friends of the writer who had access to populations of teachers, or to other persons who volunteered to help. All of the teacher respondents volunteered to complete the questionnaire. The friends and volunteers were given batches of questionnaires to be distributed, with instructions to the teachers to mail the forms to the writer. A total of 313 questionnaires, fully and adequately completed, were re— turned by mail in time for the deadline for data analysis. 39 It was not possible to know how many questionnaires were accepted by teachers and not returned, since it was not possible to determine how many questionnaires in a batch given to a "distributor" were actually given to a teacher. Thus, it cannot be said that the sample is re- presentative of the population of Iranian teachers. On the other hand, it is the writer's impression that a wide variety of teachers were reached. Approximately 20% of the returns were from Teheran, which is also approximately the proportion of Iranian teachers in the capital city. Thecflflmntquestionnaires came from smaller cities through- out Iran. The age and sex distributions, and the educational levels, are presented in Tables 5 and 6. It will be noted that the age range is restricted, over half of the re- spondents being in the 21-30 year age group. The distribu— tion for educational level is bimodal with the large majority of the sample being college graduates. Measures The Attitude-Behavior Scale (ABS) The ABS is an attitude scale developed by Jordan (1968), used widely in international studies of attitudes toward the handicapped, and revised by the present writer for use with the Iranian sample. The basic scale is a 20 item scale. In this study three forms of the scale are 40 Table 5. Distribution of respondents according to age and sex. Sex Age Female Male Total Under 20 5 2 7 21-30 68 103 171 31-40 57 60 117 41-50 5 ll 16 50-over 0 2 2 Total 135 178 313 Table 6. Distribution of respondents according to educational level and sex Sex Educational Level Female Male Total 6 years of school or less 0 0 0 7-9 years of school 0 l 1 10-12 years of school 38 63 101 Some college or university 39 40 79 A college of university degree 58 74 132 Total 135 178 313 41 used, each form worded to apply to the appropriate dis- ability group, deaf, blind, or mentally retarded, and for each disabil ferent sets to the scale The are the ing are the deaf. 9. 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. 15. F011 scale for ea Deaf same, except for the name of the disability. ity group it is presented twice with two dif- of instructions. Thus, each respondent responds six times. first 15 items of the three forms of the ABS Follow- stems for the 15 items from the form for the Deaf persons have less energy and vitality than others. It is almost impossible for deaf persons to lead a normal life. Deaf persons have ability to do school work. Deaf persons generally have as much initiative as others. Deaf persons can maintain a good marriage. Deaf persons should not have children. Deaf persons are likely to be faithful to their spouses. Deaf persons are able to take care of their children. Deaf persons Deaf persons Deaf persons are likely to obey the law. make plans for the future. are so by luck or fate. Deaf persons like to be with other people. Deaf persons are likely to have the ability to be financially self-sufficient. Rules for deaf persons should be less strict. Education for deaf persons is as important as for others. owing are the five statements specific to the ch disability area. 1. Deaf persons can usually learn to use speech in communication with others. 2. Deaf persons are usually comfortable with hearing people. 3. Deaf persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school materials. by providing special 42 4. Deaf persons can usually benefit from a hearing aid. 5. Deaf persons are usually able to continue higher education. Blind 1. Visually impaired persons can participate in social activities with sighted persons. 2. Visually impaired persons can usually learn to take care of their daily living tasks. 3. Visually impaired persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school by providing special materials. 4. Mobility training usually will enable visually impaired persons to travel independently. 5. Physical education and sports should be part of educational curriculum of visually impaired persons. MR 1. The intelligence level of most mentally re- tarded persons can be increased through educa— tion. 2. Mentally retarded persons can learn almost anything but at a slower rate. 3. Mentally retarded persons can usually complete elementary school. 4. Mentally retarded persons can learn to develop personal hygiene and good health habits. 5. Most mentally retarded persons can learn social skills to get along with other people. Two sets of instructions to which the teachers re— sponded for each disability area are illustrated below with the corresponding response alternatives for items number 1 and 21. The first setcxfinstructions is referred to in previous studies as eliciting attitudes at the "stereo- typical" level; the second set, at the "hypothetical" level. These terms will be used here in order to be in keeping with previous usage. Also in keeping with previous usage, these two sets of instructions are referred to as "levels". Their meaning is operationally defined by these instructions: 43 Stereotypical Level: "...circle the number that indicates how other people compare deaf persons to those who are not deaf ...Other people generally believe the following things about deaf persons as compared to those who are not deaf." Example: 1. Deaf persons have less energy and vitality than others. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe .waH Hypothetical Level: "...circle the number that indicates for each of these state- ments how YOU PERSONALLY compare deaf persons to those who are not deaf...In respect to deaf persons would you expect that." Example: 1. Deaf persons have less energy and vitality than others. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4 . strongly disagree It will be noted that the response options differ for the two sets of instructions to be in keeping with the point of view the respondent is to assume. The score for each item is the number of the re— sponse chosen, with the number 4 always representing the most positive attitude. If a subject chooses the response number 1 for each of the 20 items his total attitude score will be 20, which represents the most negative attitude possible. Thus, scores on each scale may range from 20 to 80, with high scores representing positive attitudes to- ward the disability being measured. 44 For the testing of all but one of the hypotheses this score for 20 items is used. However, for Hypothesis 10 (see section on Research Hypotheses) two scores are used; one based on the first 15 (common) items and one based on the last 5 (specific) items in each form of the scale. Clarification of terminology relating to the ABS In this study the attitude objects are the deaf, the blind, and the mentally retarded. As stated previously the term "13231" refers to whether the attitude toward an attitude object has been expressed following instructions to report what the respondent thinks other people believe (Stereotypical Level) or what he himself believes (Hypo- thetical Level). Thus, if, speaking for myself, I express attitude x about the deaf, my attitude x is at the hypo— thetical level and the attitude object is the deaf. The first 15 items of the questionnaire will be referred to as the "common items", and the last 5 in each form of the scale as the "specific items". The sum of the scores for the 15 items is the common items score; the sum for the five items, the specific items score. Translation into Persian (Appendix 2) In order to guarantee accurate translation of the scales into the language of Iran the method of back-trans- lation was used (Jordan, 1977). After the scale had been translated into Persian, the Persian version was submitted to a Persian American colleague to be translated back into 45 English. The comparison of the two English versions thus provided a measure of the errors that may have occurred in the translating process. Persian equivalents of the terms deaf, visually impaired, and mentally retarded were used. It is the writer's conviction that the Iranian teachers, in respond— ing to the Persian equivalents, visualized the totally deaf, and the totally blind populations. Therefore, while the English version of the questionnaires.uses the term "visually impaired" the term "blind" is used elsewhere in this study, both because of its brevity and because it is closer in meaning to the probable interpretation by the teachers of the Persian equivalent than is the term "visually impaired." The writer has less confidence that the term "mentally retarded" was interpreted in a uniform manner. However, it is probable that the referents for this term for the majority of the Iranian teachers were the severely and moderately retarded. Reliability of the ABS The procedure selected to estimate the reliability of the three forms of the ABS was to obtain a measure of internal consistency for each form by computing Alpha re- liability coefficients. Table 7 contains the obtained reliability coefficients. 46 Table 7. Reliability coefficients for the ABS forms Research Group ABS-DEAF ABS-BLIND ABS-MR STER HYPO STER HYPO STER HYPO Regular school teachers (313) .85 .90 .83 .88 .82 .87 These coefficients, while marginal for individual prediction, are adequate for the group comparisons made in this study. The Independent Variables Three of the independent variables are the demo- graphic variables of age, sex, and education described above in the section dealing with the subjects of the study. The age and education categories that are used in the test- ing of hypotheses are presented with the previous dis- cussion in Tables 5 and 6. Efficacy The final nine items of the questionnaire, items 138-146, make up what is termed here an "efficacy" scale.1 It was designed to measure the subject's view of man's effectiveness in the face of his natural environment. The lEfficacy is operationalized by the Life Situations' scale (Husen, 1967) which measures man's sense of control over his social and physical environment. 47 following nine items are responded to using the four cate- gories from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree" as in the ABS. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. It should be possible to eliminate war once and for all. Success depends to a large part on luck and fate. Some day most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science. By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world. With increased medical knowledge it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years. Some day the deserts will be converted into farming land by the application of engineer- ing and science. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way. With hard work anyone can succeed. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. The possible score range is from 9 to 36, with a high score representing a high degree of efficacy. This scale,adapted from a Guttman scale reported by Wolf (1967), was designed to measure attitudes toward man and his en- vironment and attempts to determine the respondent's view of his relationship to the environment. "The continuum underlying this scale ranged from a view that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some measure of adjustment to forces outside of himself, to a view than man could gain complete mastery of his physical and social environment and use it for his own purposes" (Wolf, 1967, p. 113). 48 Contact The contact independent variable was measured by the following items. 132. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering all of the time you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it been altogether? No experience . Up to 20 occasions . Between 21 and 100 occasions . Between 101 and 500 occasions . More than 501 occasions U‘lrbLUNl-J The stems for items 134 and 136 which measured con- tact with the blind "Have you had any experience with visually impaired persons? About how many times?" The same form was followed for the deaf and the mentally retarded. In hypothesis testing, the contact item for a particular disability was related to the attitude toward that disability. Thus, there were three different contact measures, with scores on each ranging from 1 to 5. Religiosity The independent variable of religiosity was measured by the following questionnaire item. 127. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regula- tions of your religion? I prefer not to answer I have no religion Sometimes Usually Almost always U14>LAJNH O O O 49 If a subject chose the first response option, "I prefer not to answer" it was considered to be a lesser amount of religiosity than the other responses. This is a questionable assumption, but is of little relevance here since only 20,or 6.4 percent,of the subjects chose this response. Change Orientation Orientation to change was measured by a score that represented the sum of scores on the following four items. This set M Hypo- thetical 62.88 57.56 30.75 .05 F > M Blind Stereo- typical 50.20 48.47 3.58 .059 F > M Hypo- thetical 62.33 59.11 13.60 .0005 F > M Mentally Retarded Stereo- typical 44.12 41.73 7.87 .005 Hypo- thetical 53.61 50.64 11.50 .001 F > M "11 v M For every ABS the women show more favorable atti- tudes toward the handicapped than do the men. Thus, the prediction stated in the hypothesis is confirmed. Efficacy and Attitudes Hypothesis 4: High efficacy scores will be associated with favorable atti- tudes toward the deaf, blind, or mentally retarded. The distribution of Efficacy scores is presented in Table 14. Missing data for one case reduced the total N to 312. 63 Table 14. Distribution of male and female respondents according to Efficacy scores. Efficacy Female Male Score N % N % 15-16 0 (0) 2 (1.1) 17-18 0 (0) 6 (3.4) 19-20 1 (.7) 4 (2.3) 21-22 4 (2.9) 17 (9.6) 23-24 12 (8.9) 32 (18.1) 25-26 22 (16.3) 33 (18.6) 27-28 18 (13.3) 26 (14.6) 29-30 11 (8.1) 11 (6.2) 31-32 12 (8.9) 9 (5.1) 33-34 12 (8.9) 3 (1.7) 35-36 43 (31L8) . 34 (19.2) Total 135 99.8* 177 99.9* * less than 100 because of rounding errors. The distributions are noticeably bimodal with one cluster of respondents achieving scores around the 25-26 level and with another group at or near the ceiling score of 36. This pattern is apparent for both women and men. No ready explanation for this clustering near the top score is available. There is a noticeable tendency for women to achieve higher efficacy scores than men. When scores are divided at the median for the total group a 2 x 2 cross-break, as 64 in Table 15, clearly indicates that the sex groups differ significantly in regard to efficacy. Table 15. The distribution of subjects by sex and by Efficacy scores above and below the median. Female Male Total Below Median 50 107 157 Above Median 85 70 155 Total 135 177 312 The correlation of Efficacy contact and religiosity with the ABS scores are presented in Table 16. Again it will be noted that the scales at the Hypothetical level show higher correlations with the independent variable, in this case Efficacy, than do_those at the Stereotypical level. Table 16. Correlations of Efficacy, contact, and reli- giosity with the three Attitude-Behavior Scales at the Stereotypical and Hypothetical levels. Attitude Behavior Scale Independent Stereotypical Hypothetical Variable D m . . B. . . . MR , . i l) .8 MR * Efficacy .28 .25 .24 .64 .61 .60 Contact .28 .22 .ll .40 .31 .37 .Religiosity .38 .-29 .22 .54 .47 .49 * All correlations significant beyond the .02 level. 65 On the basis of these correlations it may be con- cluded that this hypothesis is confirmed; that the more efficacious one perceives oneself to be the more favorable are one's attitudes toward the handicapped. Contact Hypothesis 5: Frequent contact with deaf, blind, or retarded persons will be associated with favorable atti- tudes toward these groups. The distributions of scores for the three items describing on 5-point scales the amount of contact that respondents have had with the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded are presented in Table 17. It will be noted that the respondents used the five points of the scale in des- cribing their contact, and that the pattern of contacts is quite similar for the three disability groups. There tend to be fewer contacts with the deaf than with the other two groups. Table 17. Distribution of respondents according to the amount of contact with the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. Contact Mentally Categories Deaf Blind Retarded N % N % N % 1. No experience 41 (13.1) 21 (6.7) 37 (11.8) 2. Up to 20 occasions 83 (26.5) 72 (23.1) 87 (27.8) 3. 21-100 123 (39.3) 84 (26.9) 86 (27.5) 4. 101-500 48 (15.3) 78 (25.0) 58 (18.5) 5. Over 501 18 ( 5.8) 57 (18.3) 45 (14.4) 66 The correlations of the contact scores with their corresponding attitude scales are presented in Table 16. Again, the larger correlation coefficients are generated by the Hypothetical level attitude scales, and, as before, the two variables have relatively little variance in common, the relationship between the Deaf-Hypothetical scale and Contact being the strongest with only 16 percent of their variance in common (r of .40). Thus, while the hypothesis is confirmed, and it may be concluded that larger amounts of contact are associated with more favorable attitudes, the relationships are not strong. Religiosity Hypothesis 6: Persons who score high on stated adherence to religion will display favorable attitudes toward the deaf, blind, or mentally retarded. The distribution of scores on the Religiosity item is presented in Table 18. Table 18. Distribution of respondents according to Religiosity scores. Response Categories for Religious Observance N Percent l. I prefer not to answer 20 6.4 2. No religion 14 4.5 3. Sometimes 74 23.6 4. Usually 88 28.1 5. Almost always 117 37.4 Totals 313 100.0 67 It will be noted that the modal response for this item is the choice indicating that the respondent "almost always" observes the rules and regulations of his religion, and that the large majority of the remaining responses are in the two adjacent categories. In spite of this limited range of scores on the Religiosity variable the correlations of this variable with the attitude scores are among the highest in the study. These correlations are presented in Table 16. It may be concluded that the hypothesis has been confirmed, and that adherence to religious values in this Iranian group is associated with favorable attitudes to- ward the handicapped. Change Orientation Hypothesis 7: Persons who score high on change orientation will display favorable attitudes toward the deaf, blind, or mentally retarded. Although the four items contributing to the Change Orientation score were considered to tap a common variable relating to the acceptance of change, and hence able to be combined into a single score, they are of interest also as measures of specific attitudes. The distributions of responses to the items relating to self change (Item 124), child rearing (Item 125), birth control (Item 126), and role adherence (Item 128) are presented in Table 19. 68 Table 19. Distribution of males and females according to their responses to the four Change items. Item 124 "Some people are more set in their ways (Self- than others. How would you rate yourself?" Change) Female Male 1. difficult to change 2 20 2. slightly difficult 28 44 3. easy 47 76 4. very easy 57 36 134 176 Item 125 "New methods of raising children should be (Child tried out whenever possible." Rearing) Female Male 1. strongly disagree 7 7 2. slightly disagree 25 28 3. slightly agree 42 67 4. strongly agree 61 76 135 178 Item 126 "What is your feeling about a married couple (Birth practicing birth control?" Control) Female Male 1. always wrong 2 9 2. usually wrong 5 35 3. probably all right 66 71 4. always right 62 62 135 177 69 Table 19 (continued) Item 128 "I find it easier to follow rules than to (Role do things on my own." Adherence) Female Male 1. agree strongly 6 12 2. agree slightly 45 65 3. disagree slightly 49 68 4. disagree strongly 35 32 135 177 It is apparent that the majority of the respondents indicate willingness to change, and acceptance of new social developments. Most striking in this regard, perhaps, is the acceptance of birth control, the large majority of respondents expressing approval through their choice of "all right" categories. It should be noted that this item does not include abortion. Two approaches were used in evaluating the rela- tionship of Change Orientation to the attitude scores. First, the change score based on the summation of the four item-scores was correlated with scores on the attitude scales. Simple correlations were determined for these relationships. Second, each item score was correlated with the attitude scales, and on the basis of these single- item correlations, multiple and partial correlations were calculated. These simple r's, and the multiple and partial correlations are presented in Table 20. 70 Table 20. Simple, multiple, and partial correlations be- tween change orientation variables and attitudes toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded. Attitude Simple Multiple Change Item Partial Correlation Behavior Self Child Birth Rule Scale r R change Rearing Control Adher— ence Deaf Stereo- typical .34 .44 .15 (.04) .36 (.07) Hypo- thetical .51 .51 .24 .25 .26 .15 Blind Stereo- typical .33 .36 .12 (.08) .26 (.08) Hypo- thetical .48 .48 .16 .24 .22 .21 Mentally Retarded Stereo- typical .26 .31 .25 (.02) .13 (.02) Hypo- thetical .40 .43 (.08) .27 .26 (.06) Note: Coefficients in parentheses are not significant at the 5% level of confidence. The simple r's and the multiple R's are statistically significant for all interrelationships, and for each re- lationship do not differ appreciably from each other. These correlation coefficients are of a magnitude similar to those reported for the relationships of the other in- dependent variables to attitudes. On the basis of these correlations it may be concluded that this hypothesis is supported. 71 The partial r's are generally considerably smaller in magnitude and many are not statistically significant. The birth control item appears to generate the largest correlations, and the rule adherence item the smallest. Comparison of Attitudes to the Deaf, Blind, and Mentally Retarded Hypothesis 8: There will be more favorable atti- tudes toward the deaf and blind than toward the mentally retarded on both the Stereotypical and Hypo- thetical levels of the Attitude Behavioral Scales. To determine whether attitudes were more favorable to one disability group than to another, ti tests comparing the group means were carried out. Results of these analyses are presented in Table 21. It will be observed that on the Stereotypical level attitudes toward the blind and deaf do not differ significantly, whereas in every comparison between these groups and the mentally retarded, less favorable attitudes are expressed toward the mentally retarded. The same over-all pattern holds for the Hypothetical level. Thus, the hypothesis is supported. Comparison of Correlations between Attitude Objects and Between Levels Hypothesis 9: The correlations of attitude scores within the same levels but across attitude objects will be greater than the correlations be- tween the different levels for a single attitude object. 72 Table 21. Comparisons of Means for Attitude-Behavior Scale Scores for the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded (N = 313 for all Means). Attitude- ABS Scores Behavior Scale M SD t p Stereotypical Deaf 49.60 8.60 * vs 1.15 (.25) Blind 49.20 7.87 Deaf 49.60 8.60 vs 17.37 .0005 Retarded 42.73 7.38 Blind 49.20 7.87 vs 15.88 .0005 Retarded 42.73 7.38 Hypothetical Deaf 59.75 8.61 vs -2.04 .04 Blind 60.45 7.62 Deaf 59.79 8.61 vs 21.26 .0005 Retarded 51.89 7.63 Blind 60.45 7.62 vs 23.42 .0005 Retarded 51.89 7.63 * non-significant at the 5% level of confidence. Hypothesis 9 was tested by Pearson correlation co- efficients and the Hotelling (1940) E test formula. Hotelling has developed a E test which takes into account two different correlations, £1 and r2, r1 (correla- tion within the same levels) and r (correlation between 2 two different levels). 73 The comparison described in this hypothesis was made by testing the significance of the difference between pairs of correlation coefficients. One member of the pair was the correlation between attitudes toward one of the disabilities at the two levels: for example, the correlation between the Steroetypical and Hypothetical levels for attitudes toward the deaf. The other member of the pair in this example was the correlation of one of the level scores for the deaf with the corresponding level score for one of the other disabilities. The pre- diction contained in the hypothesis was thattfluabetween levels correlation would be significantly smaller than the correlation between attitude objects. The correlations and the tests of the significance of the difference between the pairs of correlations are presented in Table 22. In all but two instances the r's differ significantly, and they are all in the predicted direction. The findings in the table give support to the theoretical assumptions underlying Jordan's (1968) five facet theory: namely, that levels of attitude-behavior scales form joint struction. That is, the structioning that occurs across attitude levels for all possible attitude objects permits the re- searcher to assess attitudes at any or all of these joint structioned attitude levels for any attitude object. The researcher may assume that the individual respondent 74 Table 22. Correlations, t test, and significant levels between the same and different levels of ABS:VI-DF-MR. Between Between Attitude r Levels r T Sig Direction . -—l —2 —- Objects Hypo-DF .76 Ste-DF .66 2.95 .0025 r1 > r2 Hypo-VI Hypo-DF Hypo-DF .69 Ster-DF .66 1.21 .15* r1 > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-DF Hypo-VI .65 Ster-VI .47 4.011 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-VI Hypo-DF .76 Ster-VI .47 4.97 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-VI Hypo-VI Hypo-DF .69 Ster-MR .41 6.57 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-MR Hypo-VI .65 Ster-MR .41 4.79 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-MR Ste-DF .73 Ster-DF .66 2.17 .025 rl > r2 Ste-VI Hypo-DF Ste-DF .64 Ster-DF .66 .52 30* r2 > rl Ste-MR Hypo-DF Ste-VI .57 Ster-VI .47 1.90 .05 rl > r2 Ste-MR Hypo-VI Ste-DF .73 Ster-VI .47 6.65 .0005 r1 > r2 Ste-VI Hypo-VI Ste-DF .64 Ster—MR .41 5.23 .0005 r1 > r2 Ste-MR Hypo-MR Ste-VI .57 Ster-MR .41 3.27 .0025 r1 > r2 Ste-MR Hypo-MR * Non-significant at the 5% level of confidence. 75 or group of respondents will provide different responses to the same item depending upon the joint level at which the question is presented. On the basis of the obtained data Hypothesis 9 was strongly supported. Comparison of Common and Specific Item Scores Hypothesis 10: There will be higher correlations across the attitude objects for the ABS common items scores than for the ABS specific items scores. To test this hypothesis the correlations between the attitudes toward two disability groups on the first 15 items of each scale (the items that are identical for the two scales) are compared to the correlations of the scores on the last five items (the items unique to each dis- ability area) of the corresponding scales. To test the significance of the difference between these Pearson r's, Fisher's z-transformation, as suggested by Glass (1970), was employed. These comparisons of correlations are presented in Table 23. The results indicate that the correlations across the attitude objects for the common items scores (r1) were significantly higher than the correlations between the attitude objects for the specific item scores (r2). It is also apparent in Table 23 that the correlations within the same levels of the Attitude-Behavior Scales (sections 1 and 2) are higher than the correlations be- tween two different levels (sections 3-5). 76 Table 23. Correlations, Z test, and significant levels between first fifteen items (common) and last five items (specific) of the ABS:VI-DF-MR. Section First Last Fifteen Ed five 5? §_ Sig Direction items items (common) (specific) Hypo-DF .73 Hypo-DP .55 3.87 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-VI Hypo-VI 1 Hypo-DP .69 Hypo-DF .39 5.43 .0005 r1 > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-MR * Hypo-VI 58 Hypo-VI .49 1.57 .058 rl > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-MR Ster-DF 68 Ster-DF 50 3.49 0005 r1 > r2 Ster-VI Ster-VI 2 Ster-DF .51 Ster-DF .42 1.43 076* rl > r2 Ster-MR Ster-MR * Ster-VI .49 Ster-VI 46 49 31 rl > r2 Ster-MR Ster-MR Hypo-MR .42 Hypo-MR 27 2.13 016 rl > r2 Ster-VI Ster-VI 3 Hypo-DP .59 Hypo-DF 37 3.61 0008 r1 > r2 Ster-VI Ster-VI Hypo-DP .44 Hypo-DF .18 3.64 .0002 r1 > r2 Ster-MR Ster-MR Ster—DF .48 Ster-DF .17 4.37 .00003 rl > r2 Hypo-MR Hypo-MR 4 Ster-DF .47 Ster-DF 27 2.90 0019 r1 > r2 Hypo-VI Hypo-VI * Ster-MR .19 Ster-MR 16 .39 .348 rl > r2 Hypo-VI Hypo-VI Hypo-DF .66 Hypo-DF .48 3.36 0005 r1 > r2 Ster-DF Ster-DF 5 Hypo-MR .43 Hypo-MR 28 2.14 .0162 r1 > r2 Ster-MR Ster-MR Hypo-VI 51 Hypo-VI .30 3.15 0008 r1 > r2 Ster-VI Ster-VI non-significant at the 5% level of confidence. 77 These findings offer support for Hypothesis 10. They also support Jordan's (1976) assumption that certain aspects of attitude-behavior are cross-culturally in- variant (that is, the simplex is determined largely by the structure of the object-subject relationship): ...certain aspects of attitude-behavior are object specific, situation specific, and/or culture specific, and that attitude change must be approached multi-dimensionally: knowledge is more related to stereotypic and normative levels and degree of contact, values, and enjoyment factors are more re- lated to actual feelings and action (be- havior) levels. (Jordan, 1976) CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS SUMMARY Purpose The primary aim of this study was to examine the relationship of certain variables to attitudes toward the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded in Iran. Specifically, the aim was to investigate the attitudes held by Iranian regular school teachers toward these disability groups. It was postulated that certain previously investigated determinants of attitudes would be significantly related to measured attitudes. A related goal of the study was to contribute to the growing body of cross-cultural re- search on attitudes toward the handicapped. Review of Literature A review of the literature indicated that studies dealing with attitudes toward the handicapped in general constitute less than 1.5 percent of total attitude studies (Saunders, 1975). To date insufficient attention has been paid to the study of attitudes of regular school teachers towards exceptional children; especially in view of the increased concern for "mainstreaming" programs. 78 79 The paucity of attitude research in the field of special education and rehabilitation in developing countries such as Iran is considered to be a common problem. No attitude study was found in Iran, which had exceptional children as the attitude object using attitude behavior scales. Thus, the present research is the first of its kind in Iran. Instrumentation The instrument used to measure attitudes toward the deaf, the blind and the mentally retarded was the Attitude Behavior Scale - Deaf, Blind, Retarded (ABS-DF, VI, MR), Jordan and Afrooz (1977), which measures two levels (Stereotypical and Hypothetical) of a person's interaction with the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded (Appendix 1). The ABS-DF, VI, MR was constructed according to Guttman's facet theory, which maintains that an attitude universe can be substructured into components which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. Facet design per- mits the construction of a scale by a semantic, logical, a priori technique and the prediction of a correlational order structure resulting from empirical application. Alternative responses to each item of the attitude scale were ordered so that the higher the number for a given alternative, the more positive was the attitude. The 80 instrument used in this study was translated into Persian in cooperation with a Persian colleague who was bilingually fluent and knowledgeable in the field of special education. Subjects The research group for the present study consisted of 313 regular school teachers from different public schools in Tehran and a few other large cities in Iran. Because of the difficulties involved it was im- possible for the present study to randomly select teachers from a part or the whole of the country. Since the re- search group was composed of all the regular school teachers who had gone through the same centralized educa- tional system, and were very homogeneous, non—random selection of the research group was considered less likely to effect the results of the study. Ten research hypotheses, derived from previous re— search in studies with different attitude objects were tested. Findings The following is a listing of the major findings. 1. Attitudes measured at the Hypothetical level were more favorable toward the handicapped than those measured at the Stereotypical level. This means, in non-technical language, that individuals tend to see themselves as holding more favorable attitudes than they attribute to other members of their culture. 2. All of the hypotheses involving the relation- ship of predictor variables to ABS scores were 81 supported, on the basis of small but signi- ficant correlations or significant differences in means. Thus, it was found that older age, a higher level of education, being a female, scoring high on the Efficacy items, having greater contact with the handicapped, being a regular participant in religious observ- ances, and being amenable to change are all associated with favorable attitudes toward the handicapped. 3. Attitudes toward the deaf and blind tend to be more favorable than attitudes toward the mentally retarded. 4. The correlations between attitudes expressed toward different disability groups were found to be higher than the correlations between attitudes at the Hypothetical and Stereo- typical levels toward a single disability group. Expressed in non-technical language this would mean, for example, that if one knows a re- spondent's attitude toward the deaf at the Hypothetical level, one would be better able to predict their attitude toward the blind, than their attitude toward the deaf at the Stereo- typical level. 5. The portions of the attitude scales based on common items were found to be more highly correlated between disability group, than were the portions based on items specific to a particular disability area. DISCUSSION In this discussion only those findings of partic- ular interest will be discussed. The results using the Efficacy scale were of in- terest because the correlations between Efficacy and atti- tudes were among the highest obtained at the hypothetical level (Table 16). This was not true in a previous study by Harrelson (1970) in Germany. He stated 82 The efficacy scale was not a strong predictor of attitude toward the mentally retarded in Germany...It may be that man's degree of con- trol over his environment [i.e., efficacy] is not the relevant issue in the highly indus- trialized and technological German culture that it may be in some of the more underde- veloped nations. This interpretation if correct, should emerge more clearly in the subsequent cross-cultural collection of data (p. 195). The relative strength of Efficacy as a predictor in this study may be due to the fact that Iran is a developing, rather than a highly industralized, country. Furthermore, it should be pointedcnnzthat many factors may contribute to positive correlations between efficacy and positive attitude toward handicapped other than industrialization issue. Strong and effective religious teaching and training may be an important factor effecting man's views of control of his natural environ- ment. One example of such teaching can be seen in Quran (Moslem holy book)iJ1which it is stated: "God will never change your condition until you change it yourselves" (XIII, 9). The above assumption was tested by correlating efficacy and the religiosity variables in this study. The correlation coefficient between efficacy and religious ad- herence was significant at the .001 level. In this study, contrary to previous attitude re- search in the Western nations, it was predicted that high religiosity would be associated with favorable attitudes 83 toward the handicapped. In previous research the assump- tion was that persons assigning a high priority to religion, and faithful to its rites and teachings, would be more rigid and closedznuiless inclined to accept deviations from conventional norms. However, the philosophical and theological outlook, and the differing practices of dif- ferent religions should be taken into consideration when assuming a positive or negative relationship between religiosity and favorable attitudes toward the handicapped. In Islamic teaching (the predominant religion of the research sample) caring about others and helping all fellowmen, regard- less of differences in color, race, language, social class, physical or mental impairment, etc., are considered the vital and essential duties of Muslims. Such a religious command is so important that it is said "whoever wakes up in the morning without the intention of helping his fellow- man is not Muslim." Therefore it can be assumed that those of high adherence to the Muslim faith would be positive in their attitudes toward their fellowman and that such attitudes should be apparent in regard to the handicapped. It should also be noted that a person's knowledge of his religion, its philosophical outlook and commands, is associated with his degree of religiosity and his attitudes toward the handicapped. In Iran, long before the establishment of a Department of Special Education, special schools for the blind, deaf and mentally retarded 84 were founded by religious organizations. Even today these private and free-of-charge institutions are part of the special education program. The sex differences in this study were appreciable and portrayed women as having more favorable attitudes to the handicapped than do men from Iran, perceiving them- selves as more efficacious, and being equally amenable to change. The favorableness of attitude toward the handi- capped on the part of women was supportive of what Jordan (1968) found in the study of cross-cultural attitudes to- ward the physically disabled. However Harrelson (1970), Morin (1970), Paulos (1970), and Gottlieb (1973), had re— verse results. In their studies men demonstrated more favorable attitudes towards handicapped than women. One reason for the results of the present study may be found in the cultural and social upbringing of Iranian women. They are more sympathetic and compassionate towards handi- capped people while men, on the other hand, tend to be more "realistic". The present study found a rather consistent and clear relationship between change orientation and the three attitude scales at the two levels. This pattern of consistency was not found in the studies of Jordan (1968), Harrelson (1969), Paulos (1970), Gottlieb (1973). One interpretation for such a result is that this study 85 employed only one group, namely, regular school teachers, and that the group is very homogeneous; living in essentially the same culture, and believing in the same religion. There is no doubt that cultural background and religious beliefs have strong impact on a person's view of life and outlook toward the universe. The data indicated that Iranian teachers have more positive attitudes toward blind and deaf persons than to- ward the mentally retarded. Sympathy toward the blind and the deaf individual may be explained by the fact that blindness and deafness are more visible, and more under- 4 standable, than mental retardation. 5 Another reason for the above finding could be the misconceptions, or the insufficient knowledge, of mental retardation held by the public. Although the research group were all teachers and mostly college educated, on the stereotypical level the group projected the society's attitudes toward the blind, deaf and mentally retarded. On the hypothetical level knowledge and education were important factors in the attitude towards the blind and deaf. It seems that knowledge of impairment would in— fluence a person's attitude toward that particular person. In the present research it appears that Iranian regular school teachers are more negative in their attitudes toward the mentally retarded than toward the blind or deaf persons. 86 The final two hypotheses related to technical characteristics of the attitude scale used in this study. The hypothesis which predicted higher correlations within the same levels of the attitude-behavior scales was supported by the obtained data. This gave support to the theoretical assumption underlying joint struction. Joint struction (subject-object relationship) defines the ordered sets of the five facets from weak to strong in terms of personal involvement across all facets simultaneously (Jordan, 1968). Given the order of the levels of the attitude-be- havior scale it was reasonable to expect that the correla- tions within the levels of the three attitude scales would be higher than the correlations between the different levels (Hypothetical and Stereotypical). The final hypothesis relating to the relative strength of association between common and specific items was also supported. This gave support to Jordan's (1970) theoretical assumption based on his comprehensive research program, dealing with personal and cognitive attitude— behavior objects: that certain aspects of attitude—behavior are object specific and certain aspects of attitude—behavior are situation specific. And attitude change must be approached multidimensionally. It should be noted that the correlational aspects of this research also carry the usual proviso that a 87 significant correlation does not imply that a cause-and- effect relationship has been demonstrated, as other unknown factors may be operating to account for the findings. Also, the stated attitudes may not be wholly reflective of the true attitudes of the respondents. Recommendations for Future Research Following are some recommendations for research based on the findings of the present study. The results of this study seem to indicate that ABS:VI-DF-MR are adequate instruments to measure the atti- tudes toward blind, deaf, and mentally retarded persons. However, it is recommended that for a greater understanding of the social-structural, cultural attitudes toward the handicapped in Iran, a more inclusive sample be drawn from the general population. Since the present study employed only regular school teachers as sample groups, the general Iranian population is not fairly represented. A replication of this study should be implemented with representative sampling. It would be desirable to provide some kind of clear definition, in behavioral terms, of the mentally retarded population. The instrument should provide more specific informa- tion about the actual knowledge of the respondents regard- ing handicapped persons in the concerned disability areas. 88 Each level of the ABS scale can be used as separate tools for research. Level 4, the Hypothetical level, has particular value for measuring the attitudes of designated groups toward specified groups of the handicapped. Further research with the existing combined three attitude scales (ABS:VI-DF-MR) with different, more heteregeneous populations in Iran and other nations are necessary in order to extend the findings obtained in this study. Implications To change attitudes toward blindness, deafness, and mental retardation is to improve the way in which blind, deaf, and mentally retarded persons are viewed and treated. The emphasis which varies somewhat according to the parti- cular attitude being dealt with, is largely upon establish- ing the fact that handicapped people are more similar to, than different from, non-handicapped people. Recognizing the fact that, to one degree or another, most negative atti— tudes involve misinformation, false beliefs, or unfounded fears, agents of change seek to disseminate accurate in- formation about the true picture of blind, deaf, and mentally retarded and their potential abilities. In-Service programs for teachers, educators, and public information services can benefit from the results obtained in this study. Special education training pro- grams for regular school teachers at all levels, particularly 89 elementary teachers, school counselors, and administrative personnel are extremely essential before enforcement of mainstreaming programs and provisions in Iran or in any other nation. These programs and services are concerned with attempts at behavioral changes toward acceptance of the deaf, blind, and mentally retarded persons, and the development of positive attitudes. Future job placement of the visually impaired, mentally retarded, and deaf persons can be more successful if the public, especially employers, are made more know- ledgeable and more positive about them. Improvement in public information programs for the handicapped may be a means of attainment of these goals. APPENDICES - T APPENDIX 1 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE Visually Impaired ...... Mentally Retarded ...... Deaf Persons DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statements of how people feel about certain things. There are two sections in each part of the questionnaire cone cerning VISUALLY IMPAIRED, MENTALLY RETARDED, AND DEAF PERSONS. In section one you are asked to indicate for each of the given statements how other people believe visually impaired persons compare to those who are not visually impaired, how mentally retarded persons compare to those who are not retarded, and how deaf persons compare to those who are not deaf. In section two you are asked to indicate how you personally compare visually impaired, mentally retarded, and deaf persons to those who are not retarded, visually impaired, and deaf. Here is a sample statement. SAMPLE 4 l. Deaf persons are likely to be physically stronger than others. 7 (:> all people believe 2. most people believe 3. some people believe 4. very few people believe If all people believe that deaf persons are physically stronger than others you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: 1. 1. - 2. === 3 . === 4. === Please int-kfrv'n'n'n'n‘n'n'n'n'n': DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET *9.-ink-7':7kvtv'n'n'n‘n'n'n'cv'n'c by: John E. Jordan G. Ali Afrooz College of Education Michigan State University 90 4/15/75 91 ABS-I-DF Direction: Section I In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that indicates how other people compare deaf persons to those who are not deaf. It is important to answer all questions, even though you are not sure of the answer to some of them. Other people generally believe the following things about the deaf persons as compared to those who are not deaf. l. Deaf persons have less energy and vitality than others. . all people believe nnst people believe some people believe . very few people believe 1 2 3 4 2. It is almost impossible for deaf persons to lead a normal life. . all people believe most people believe some people believe . very few people believe 1 2 3 4 3. Deaf persons have ability to do school work. . very few people believe Some people believe most people believe . all people believe 1 2 3 4 4. Deaf persons generally have as much initiative as others. . very few people believe some people believe most people believe . all people believe 1 2 3 4 5. Deaf persons can maintain a good marriage. . very few people believe some people believe most people believe . all people believe 1 2 3 4 6. Deaf persons should not have children. . all people believe most people believe some people believe . very few people believe DWNH . 92 ABS-l-DF Other people generally believe the following things about the deaf persons as compared to those who are not deaf: 7. Deaf persons are likely to be faithful to their spouses. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe wap—I 8. Deaf persons are able to take care of their children. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe DWNt—I 9. Deaf persons are likely to obey the law. very few people believe some people believe most people believe . all people believe DWNH 10. Deaf persons make plans for future. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 11. Deaf persons are so by luck or fate. all people believe most people believe some people believe all people believe wat-I 12. Deaf persons like to be with other people. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe wal-d 13. Deaf persons are likely to have the ability to be financially self-sufficient very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe wap—I 93 ABS-I-DF Other people generally believe the following things about the deaf persons as compared to those who are not deaf: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Rules for deaf persons should be less strict. DWNH very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe Education for deaf persons is as important as for others. s~o>M|H Deaf waI-d war—I Deaf very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe persons can usually learn to use speech in communication with others. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe persons are usually comfortable with hearing people. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school by providing Special materials. 19. 20. J—‘wNp—I Deaf very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe persons can usually benefit from a hearing aid. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe persons are usually able to continue higher education. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe 94 ABS-IV-DF Direction: Section II This section contains the same statements about the deaf persons as they were stated in section one, but here you are asked to circle the number that indicates for each of these statements how YOU PERSONALLY compare deaf persons to those who are not deaf. It is important to answer all questions even though you are not sure of the answer to some of them. In respect to deaf persons would you expect that: 21. Deaf persons have less energy and vitality than others. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 22. It is almost impossible for deaf persons to lead a normal life. 1 strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4 strongly disagree 23. Deaf persons have ability to do school work. 1. strongly disagree 2 disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 24. Deaf persons generally have as much initiative as others. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 25. Deaf persons can maintain a good marriage. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 26. Deaf persons should not have children. 1 strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly agree 95 W In respect to deaf persons would you expect that: 27. Deaf persons are likely to be faithful to their spouses. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 28. Deaf persons are able to take care of their children. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 29. Deaf persons are likely to obey the law. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 30. Deaf persons make plans for future. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 31. Deaf persons are so by luck or fate. 1 strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 32. Deaf persons like to be with other people. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 33. Deaf persons are likely to have the ability to be financially self-sufficient. 1 strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4 strongly agree 96 ABS-IV-DF In respect to deaf persons would you expect that: ‘34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Rules for deaf persons should be less strict. war—a strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree Education for deaf persons is as important as for others. Deaf strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree persons can usually learn to use speech. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree persons are usually comfortable with hearing people. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school by providing special materials. 40. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree persons can usually benefit from hearing aid. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree persons are usually able to continue higher education. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 97 ABS-I-VIP Direction: Section I In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that indicates how other people compare visually impaired persons to those who are not visually impaired. It is important to answer all questions, even though you are not sure of the answer to some of them. Other people generally believe the following things about the visually impaired persons as compared to those who are not visually impaired: 41. Visually impaired persons have less energy and vitality than others. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe wav—I 42. It is almost impossible for visually impaired persons to lead a normal life. all people believe most pe0ple believe some people believe very few people believe J-‘Lle-l 43. Visually impaired persons have ability to do school work. very few people believe some people believe most people believe . all people believe bWNl—l 44. Visually impaired persons have as much initiative as others. very few people believe some peOple believe most people believe all people believe DUONH 45. Visually impaired persons can maintain a good marriage. very few people believe some peOple believe most people believe all people believe bWNI—l 46. Visually impaired persons should not have children. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe ql-‘UJNH 98 ABS-I-VIP Other people generally believe the following things about the visually impaired persons as compared to those who are not visually impaired: 47. Visually impaired persons are likely to be faithful to their spouses. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 48. Visually impaired persons are able to take care of their children. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 49. Visually impaired persons are likely to obey the law. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 50. Visually impaired persons make plans for the future. 1 very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 51. Visually impaired persons are so by luck or fate. 1. all people believe 2. most people believe 3. some people believe 4. very few peOple believe 52. Visually impaired persons like to be with other people. 1. very few people believe 2. some peeple believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 53. Visually impaired persons are likely to have the ability to be financially self-sufficient. DUONI-l very few people believe some peOple believe most people believe all people believe 99 ABS-I-VIP Other people generally believe the following things about the visually impaired as compared to those who are not visually impaired: 54. Rules for visually impaired persons should be less strict. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe J-‘LoNp-I 55. Education for visually impaired persons is as important as for others. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 56. Visually impaired persons can participate in social activities with 3 sighted persons. i 1 very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 57. Visually impaired persons can usually learn to take care of their daily living tasks. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe war-I 58. Visually impaired persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school by providing special materials. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe bWND-l 59. Mobility training usually will enable visually impaired persons to travel independently. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 60. Physical education and sports should be part of educational curriculum of visually impaired persons. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe 4)me 100 ABS-IV-VIP Direction: Section II This section contains the same statements about visually impaired persons as they were stated in section one, but here you are asked to circle the number that indicates for each of these statements how YOU PERSONALLY compare visually hmpaired persons to those who are not visually impaired. It is important to answer all questions even though you are not sure of the answer to some of them. In respect to visually impaired persons would you expect that: 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Visually impaired persons have less energy and vitality than others. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree ‘ V It is almost impossible for visually impaired persons to lead a normal life. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree Visually impaired persons have ability to do school work. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Visually impaired persons have as much initiative as others. . strongly disagree . disagree agree 1 2 3 4 strongly agree Visually impaired persons can maintain a good marriage. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly disagree Visually bmpaired persons should not have children. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree lOl ABS-IV-VIP In respect to visually impaired persons would you expect that: 67. Visually impaired persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 68. Visually impaired persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 69 Visually impaired persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 70. Visually impaired persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 7l. Visually impaired persons 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 72. Visually impaired persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 73. Visually impaired persons self-sufficient. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree are likely to be faithful to their spouses. are able to take care of their children. are likely to obey the law. make plans for the future. are so by luck or fate. like to be with other people. are likely to have ability to be financially 102 ABS-IV-VIP In respect to visually impaired persons would you expect that: 74. Rules for visually impaired persons should be less strict. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 75. Education for visually impaired persons is as important as for others. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 76. Visually impaired persons can participate in social activities with sighted persons. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 77. Visually impaired persons can usually learn to take care of their daily living tasks. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 78. Visually impaired persons can usually be mainstreamed in regular school by providing special materials. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree DWNv—I 79. Mobility training usually will enable visually impaired persons to travel independently. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly disagree 80. Physical education and sports should be part of educational curriculum of visually impaired persons. 1. strongly disagree disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 103 ABS-I-MR Direction: Section I 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. It is important to answer all questions, even though you are not sure of the answers to some of them. Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded persons as compared to those who are not mentally retarded: 81. Mentally retarded persons have less energy and vitality than others. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe war—I 82. It is almost impossible for mentally retarded persons to lead a normal life. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe J—‘UONp—I 83. Mentally retarded persons have ability to do school work. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe DWNr—I 84. Mentally retarded persons have as much initiative as others. very few people believe most people believe some people believe all people believe ¢~u2Nna 85. Mentally retarded persons can maintain a good marriage. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe DWNI-l 86. Mentally retarded persons should not have children. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe waI—I 104 ABS-I-MR Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded persons as compared to those who are not retarded: 87. Mentally retarded persons are likely to be faithful to their spouses. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe war—I 88. Mentally retarded persons are able to take care of their children. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe wap—l 89. Mentally retarded persons are likely to obey the law. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe DWNp—I 90. Mentally retarded persons make plans for the future. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe bWNp—I 91. Mentally retarded persons are so by luck or fate. all people believe most people believe some people believe very few people believe J—‘WNI—I 92. Mentally retarded people like to be with other people. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe waI—I 93. Mentally retarded persons are likely to have the ability to be financially self-sufficient. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe #ri—I ..... ._ a. w ac... 1. MG‘. 105 ABS-I-MR Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded persons as compared to those who are not retarded: 94. Rules for mentally retarded persons should be less strict. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 95. Education for mentally retarded persons is as important as for others. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 96. The intelligence level of most mentally retarded persons can be increased through education. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 97. Mentally retarded persons can learn almost anything but at a slower rate. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 98. Mentally retarded persons can usually complete elementary school. 1. very few people believe 2. some people believe i 3. most people believe 4. all people believe 99. Mentally retarded persons can learn to develop personal hygiene and good health habits. very few people believe some people believe most people believe all people believe DWND—I 100. Most mentally retarded persons can learn social skills to get along with other people. 1 very few people believe 2. some people believe 3. most people believe 4 all people believe figfim 106 ABS-IV-MR Direction: Section II This section contains the same statements about the mentally retarded persons as they were stated in section one, but here you are asked to circle the number that indicates for each of these statements how YOU PERSONALLY compare mentally retarded persons to those who are not mentally retarded. It is important to answer all questions even though you are not sure of the answer to some of them. 101. Mentally retarded persons have less energy and vitality than others. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 102. It is almost impossible for mentally retarded persons to lead a normal life. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 103. Mentally retarded persons have ability to do school work. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 104. Mentally retarded persons have as much initiative as others. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 105. Mentally retarded persons can maintain a good marriage. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 106. Mentally retarded persons should not have children. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree J—‘WNH In respect to mentally retarded 107. Mentally retarded persons buster-s 108. Mentally retarded persons J-‘UONI-l 109. Mentally retarded persons bWNl—i 110. Mentally retarded persons booth—- 111. Mentally retarded persons 1. 2. 3. 4. 112. Mentally retarded persons 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 113. Mentally retarded persons self-sufficient. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree 107 ABS-IVrMR persons would you expect that: are likely to be faithful to their spouses. are able to take care of their children. are likely to obey the law. make plans for the future. are so by luck or fate. like to be with others. are likely to have the ability to be financially 108 ABS-IV-MR In respect to mentally retarded persons would you expect that: 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. Rules for mentally retarded persons should be less strict. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Education for mentally retarded persons is an important as for others. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree The intelligence level of most mentally retarded persons can be increased through education. 9 1. strongly disagree g; 2. disagree I“ 3. agree 4. strongly agree Mentally retarded persons can learn almost anything but at slower rates. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Mentally retarded persons can usually complete elementary school. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree J-‘LDNI-l Mentally retarded persons can learn to develop personal hygiene and good health habits. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Most mentally retarded persons can learn social skills to get along with other people. ~ 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 109 ABS This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers of all persppp 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 identified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to evepy question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer you choose. 121. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 years of age 2. 21-30 3. 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 50-over 122. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 123. About how much education do you have? 1. 6 years of school or less 2. 7-9 years of school 3. 10-12 years of school 4. Some college or university 5. A college or university degree 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 110 -ABS - Some people are more set in their ways than others. HOW would you rate yourself? I find it difficult to change I find it slightly difficult to change I find it somewhat easy to change I find it very easy to change my ways bump—I Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous, What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." . Strongly disagree Slightly disagree Slightly agree Strongly agree Dri—d Family planning or 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 they 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 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 I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly «PWNH 111 This part of the questionnaire deals with your experiences or contacts with handicapped persons. Perhaps you have had much contact with handicapped persons, 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. 129. 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 m-DWNH 130. 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 only one answer. 1. I have read or studied about handicapped persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations A friend or relative is handicapped . I have personally worked with handicapped persons as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. 4. I, myself, have a fairly serious handicap 5. No experience WM 131. 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 129, about how many tfines has it been altogether? . No experience . Up to 20 occasions . Between 21 and 100 occasions Between 101 and 500 occasions . More than 501 occasions l 2 3 4 S 132. 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? I. No experience 2. Up to 20 occasions 3. Between 21 and 100 occasions 4. Between 101 and 500 occasions 5. More than 501 occasions 133. How have you generally felt about your experiences with mentally retarded persons? No experience I definitely disliked it I did not like it very much I liked it somewhat I definitely enjoyed it Ln-DWNH o 134. 136. 137. :3: Ln-l-‘UONH UIJ-‘ri-I Ul-DLJONI-l VII-\UONI—l 112 - ABS - Have you had any experience with visually impaired persons? About how many times? No experience Up to 20 occasions Between 21 and 100 occasions Between 101 and 500 occasions More than 501 occasions have you generally felt about your experience with visually impaired persons? No experience I definitely disliked it I did not like it very much I liked it somewhat I definitely enjoyed it Have you had any experience with deaf persons? About how many times? No experience Up to 20.0ccasions Between 21 and 100 occasions Between 101 and 500 occasions More than 501 occasions have you felt about your experience with deaf persons? No experience I definitely disliked it I did not like it very much I liked it somewhat I definitely liked it 113 - ABS - This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. circling the answer you choose. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. It should be possible to 143. eliminate war once and for all 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree Success depends to a large part on luck and fate. 144. l. Strongly agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree Some day most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science 1. Strongly disagree 145. 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world 146. l. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree With increased medical knowledge it should be possible to lengthen the average live span to 100 years or more Strongly disagree . Disagree Agree Strongly agree bkfihJH Please indicate how you feel about each situation by Someday the deserts will be converted into farming land by the application of engineering and science 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way. 1. Strongly agree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly disagree With hard work anyone can succeed. l. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. 1. Strongly disagree 2. Disagree 3. Agree 4. Strongly agree APPENDIX 2 PERSIAN TRANSLATION OF ABS ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE (Persian thfifilation) VisuallU'Impaired ........ Mentally Retarded ............... Deaf persons 6.. ° . . .. ((1 —---"u~-?-~“ ‘---°L~“-J--:H {Ibu-f cu” D‘s-’5'?“ . oL'yxzb QLL-LL- xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx §******** By: G..Ali Afrooz John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State university 114 4/15/75 115 J__-___;.s.)\)lS..o *¥¥¥X%¥¥¥Xfi¥fi a. MJ‘)‘;$);-LJ c.‘ --.l‘e 95w; $1.311 063,5 9L0; WM 94...»: .25).... 6:». JLla‘g‘uéa‘JH-e: )3)» da‘}: 64.-J 05‘ big-55 Jae-a0}: . can} .11.: 4.3.1: UB1.» that...” 0131' ‘ —————— —>.-55 Jim 6W 6,15» 945»ij 445-349.; add-“53 ‘——-—~= abyss: Ebb—k: dubs-VT ca )4) c3-—.-93J Jfie‘» 4. ,4 ,1.- 0:4,; 6.354? . Jfiu‘J—suflwfi o.‘ daisy: w-La‘fi: C---“L: Jams... cLJN’XJS ubwflgm; 43.311: we); alps...” Jfi—Jea-p wa'10‘S-JJS ”VLF 905)}: “45' “’wfifl' OAS... (3.9-0 at" -c-....:.|.J.J..n\,_~;. up...) 931).: 9.3.): 'ccalJulsz»_5a2 $.ng 'DL} 331;"... J33... a!) cpl); 45 wl‘fglfi 116 : 0......3‘d-b‘) flVVVVVVVVVVVVV 4.2.1»... ‘5 uk‘wp‘e Saw-5b 9553-5 9M5 9+? 9“" £9355 our...” az‘ aLstamega c9133.: ASL-.3 0.23.3 9154131939: glam-31‘“ $1314.15 L, J51 w“ )J 45:11.1“...354 .11.: W .51.» supp r‘JS,» ”3-.....54. o‘-—-5J‘35"—.5&:‘}541‘5‘ twbww‘ t: Sic-w r’r 4.13;, 9‘)--—L°‘-’ .4505!- 'CA‘I“) _____ ...EJJJyL: ObyajlanJ‘jlp 0-.....pl‘5..fl__iaj.1 0-.....3403 .0 Cana‘ ‘J—_-——A:U‘33 dJ‘F-J‘)‘Lg ‘__.~ug‘s.n)J a...\o.»..:...e,.t-.w,s.. .. on. :11. use... JWTW‘ 4., :2 db. ; J_..._J)¢.S 4.3.3....» ODS..-” 35‘): 5,? J.QJ__-_EJ“MB¢LL$\ JJJ‘JJ‘SZZG‘ 0,33. VJ)“ u -y 6““: 45)‘ 4’53“ 0:5?- ?Jxfi‘ -" J13... h .1 4:)‘Jal'i3! 0.9?1’41‘5‘ up... ..f .- LLv‘YK‘DQ ““J‘N‘b‘ w“ “He-4W -i 0--.,93. 0135:1213 .55.); a_aL.» rarfl‘ ASJ____,:S,.)$w;l .JL... ob»... 0 J——-—.:)":‘S-: ¢__.L° (Em-lg; “we”. J52... 91...: myth. 9% but: uJyM '15.» 'BJaJ O . 43--.; 9:53 ‘64-’- 4: Q‘s-1:- ‘9‘“)3-«5‘ Una-h: t: J'JL‘J’J-DS‘ ub‘xfi‘pwfiwle-fie ('ka y_$£.‘}L:.J‘)§‘L MLJJbingpLsMH se....s\J,J,.,.L.,Ss,-,L . 4.21, f'“ 0.)): )_-__E.:J);.. £59.31}... ‘ULJAULJSfi? 015‘bi 9L0.) faxwrbsjl . 1.31.: wacky). “@153... 91...: sJ-gBaJ-J (x )calsl. («U 6.1:) w 5)., ‘53))4‘) . 4--...31.) :451133133‘ opalfiblyazbuow‘ 4...,,\.S;JJ"J,..~ (“5" .c...‘ o‘}: aj‘ps‘mww‘ ( .54-Dr- ) .91» “3:91 aha—>3 —w ..UJUJEM W?!‘)‘ 4.4:. _¢ 'UJ‘JJE.“ O~> r-b-PS‘ —\‘ 4514.15.21 03.5%. rJ). 6.9.... ..r 43,1.)le 0.9-5? UJJJNJ‘);‘ -1 rJz-x‘w J3. $45M bub-343% ‘5~=--‘ éuxé‘kfis‘wbww‘ 6‘). -Y JJJ‘JJBJZF‘ 95.33. f'JJ" u _\ 'UJ‘JJB‘B‘ u-5>- r-‘rf-S‘ -Y mun-.3: 0:32- rw‘ era": -\' 45144133! 0,33. 54344.31}! .1 . .21.. Widens: rug! ”1.)! smug”? usb\,;\,;..u.,u.u ..r 43".).113310 quay. 5334~31j1_\ neww w-‘e- .w‘ orb“! -x 4:)\JJ‘__.5.::‘ 9.5;. .595! ..r J___J)‘JJ‘3&5‘ 0145::er a...» _{ (Y) 118 £24.415Jk¢w\wh‘yfiby&2‘¢ékj)flg‘dfi -1 AJJUJBJs‘ 0,33. ngJJuJ‘j‘ .} ' ' Hr)“ u~"’-"-: -" n 0 (Jr ‘ ‘ -‘, rJyM ...i . ..LLILL, uh uJUVl‘ C‘QJj‘u‘y‘Mprw‘ —o ..L'J‘J J‘--.3:.s‘ 0:52. a.:;.:.:...:b§\_‘ rJrJ‘wé-‘H’ . ' rJJ-‘PS‘-Y ' ' Hr U-i . .45; _______ .34 xjjwb‘wbyw\ Swift.“ -1 J_____J)‘J J‘_—_3:IS‘ (’93? rJ). u...) (4)9194 r‘rj'wb‘fi'v 5J3J~Jb§‘_i . J_-_J)\JB;J,.=. 05......» g M'Yw‘fifi www! ..y J__._$)‘JJ‘3&£‘ 0,5? 545.)...4‘}! ...3 ' r439" M34“. -\' ' ' r‘xfi“ -Y {Jr M-i —-£ 4--....“ Jpo‘xjj 6).: ‘41.: gjafi‘wbuaw\_1\ J_-_3)‘ JJBJA 0,93. ngJ~J\)5‘_.\ ' erJ‘M~-V r0994“ fJJ‘ u 4‘1 (r) 119 . JJ1JJ13531U~>1ML31M15¢L5~4~1L~13¢JJ Y)...“ fJ)‘ . WJ__3.,,L 0,313 ~2ng 9153.; www.\' ‘1)...» ...q 4:)1JJ1355c1u*> dJJJ~J1}1_) r429“ orb-“~24 n p rJyJI‘S1—Y rJ). M-i . .J____:.:....m «1.5,; via (5)1445; OJJgTd1fl1’Ja2b‘fw1 -1. ' ' 64,41,491- ' ' rJrJ‘ui’-'-:-\’ " " f4)“ «a_r ' ' (”1%)51-2 J____.:...:L1,~2L «SW1 04,. W>1pLUaLs~21JLa13W1~_3 3 “5.15.14.14.91...‘ 1. . €42“) M-‘H 4' l n rJfJ-S‘—Y p - f-Jx M—i 5.134....41j1 ..y ' r’rj‘ué-‘é-V " ' r—‘riSL-V ' ' Hr W—i 421.9455. ”'54:; 91.11 4.0.11? 01):“: JUL‘LLS 03L1ydzbgpw1éawwlkgq r " " 6J3J~J1J51_} ' ' erJ‘u‘b‘eY ' ' Phi-5‘4 . ' Hr M-Y ALL 0121.) a» 41.15441 W1N1ygbgpw1“ 511.61,)»; W139...) 1 " " 5J3J~J1J§1..) ' . erfi‘wé-H-T ' ' r-bvffl—Y rJ). M—i (i) 120 .51.) 1.5-’1-‘Lf1-5-va1d‘fi ASJJ1J1)W1ow1gu-Lyw1dg1fiuzprjij_y o JJJ1JJ1___32£1W? (5.131;... 4551...} erj‘wé-H-V av I rJfJI-‘S‘—r xjykofi 031...»)413 01,351,»; 1.013.. 94.31.13 d1fl1fifi-Jfimw1 ' 11.1““ —1‘1’ 6.13.)“ J1)§1_‘ fij‘U‘éJ'e-1 v v rpr‘T' U I rJ). M_i . 415...: L511111;v.1.4..:.11};.::.«11,51 9LWJ'YM133JJLUaLuL3Y ' ' ngJmJbH-‘ ' " rJrJ‘ui—H-Y ' ' rv‘rfig-Y ' ' rJ). «.55-; jab-01).»; QJEWJ1JL)J.U)JE15$J1J J1)“, YyJ.‘ 65.3 “151..., 0.15.; r91);l_,_\ A 43525 J‘M“ Jeww. o‘jfi-TJJ‘J I! 014%- dJfiJflJ‘fi1—1 rJr)‘f~-1 l U rJyjts‘ _Y I I rJf u-i 0915.31 uflyx: Q’EJJJJJBQ. ( 003.415.. .5142: U415) 0313:; '_‘LS r51,J'Y,..~_) q 4,21... -..Sy1yfi15 ' ' gJ5J~J1}1_) ' rJrJ‘ué-‘e-Y . . PUD-19'4" ' .é ' fJJ‘M-i 4.51.11) diam); M 4.141.414.1311; gb1p1yabuaw1'fly~_y . ' ' dJJJNJ‘)1-1 ' rJrJ‘wb-H—V ' ' H.051—Y‘ ' ' f-b' M—2 (0) 121 ”9.1%.; ****§EX**X# ( oL‘5--—--J~i1«') 66666666 :0 ——————— Jm‘) 6-...LLUWLJ‘ W 95-—15;: €44.03 0.31).) 45951.53 L“H11... . ..LJ1OJ1J 9313.4... 0...... “Sid 9....1)J:.; flywwwn. «.513941yxzbualu-1 ...Jjwbwfiwa but. : 45.4.01.) 6J___.,,3.¢1.~$1.;1 1WLJM1JJyJJ . @101fi451p1yxbyw1 (05.13))... ) 63“" 53)-...” 1.9)): _\') (551» ”1,1,: —\ f—‘ifly —\’ rflb-v 4.1115... ’1Jgu_g JQSJ.‘ rJyflL... J3. ”$43)- 6J1J1)J..LL31}°5.: 6W1 Us“); 1gp1y4byw1 61).. —T\’ w‘y‘Lk-Lfia r531)- -Y F-‘i-‘B‘ -v .féJLs... “1.13.1.3 .{ . 4.2.4.1). 4...).1. 6.5.1153 r1441 5.4.1.551 6.1;)141);T 031.315,,"1531215‘91531 _\'\~ rm... “14:43-1 rm» .. (~15- -\" . r31y’14gu -i (1) 122 ; 454.91.: ankLJLT1MULpLsJ1JJyJJ L...1u)bu1M1JJL1}LJ1JUO1$~$1L&g3>1$5JLSJ¢1J§ 4;. riJLA.’1.L~..L.: -1 an» 4 r‘i“? -v . {5315-‘14: 4.: -—£ up mu @1446 C|3gj1w1fiy1wbyw1 4° PUB“ “1.1.14.1; .4 rm» —1 .5131)- —Y .951}- '14.»: —1 1:3- 12.2415); Wb1yJLJw-1 6w-1,__:+._71 e1“:- “4.4—1 —\ r331)» —\' (“15*- —1" .riJBu ‘14,, 4.2 -1 451-11354); 91% w 'Yya‘y-fibwwvhw .riJLs... “1.1.4.: .) 1501* —V {5315.1 —Y 'f‘”‘5" ‘14,”); .1 may 0“”).155‘15fi-“4-f‘ ‘v’mWL‘u’B-JLTA . faJLs... -3 r915“ ”Jr-’J-Y p351.» —\" on. fw‘y‘Ux-w—i (Y) 123 :64gJ1.)JJ__¢3&1.¢.$LT1}L£1JUOU.$1JJ}9)J wank 9.1313 1:21;; Q’s-315.91%" 113.... —x a €51.18... ’14.:4; -3 riJLh-v is"). -—3' 353‘» ”4:43 —i 4.3....» 4.1.9.; 0.1961144}; dJJgTu1fi1yJLUoLAL-Lr. 9J1x‘14fl4fi. -3 N1» 4 {5551? -r .66.“). “1.1.5.1.:- __£ AMUJUB dad”). 9e5953~$15yw1 dLEDwJU—m 3.5.515. ”4.4-4: —3 {who —3 FULL. -3“ PUB... “1451:: -i 151,41... 6.115091.st 6.x; uk1fi.byw1_r3 9J1.» "1:41: ..3 PUB... -3' #5315- —3" 10"» “*fl# — at» 1” ‘ 433M 45$- 051:) 91419)”? 91,2.) «11.5 03L1yJLUoLLa1 64...”)-..Lu‘v, ..3V3- (.in "14.4.:4 run. -3' p355» -Y . 355150 “Ag-w -£ 4,31,41,31.) £5,141, 61.2141 Gw";—+¢‘#-byw1 ‘51). 91)}; 0,919“ -3“; réJB... ’14....113 ...3 3.3.11.5... ..3’ 35151» -3' 353‘» “4.4-; —i (A) 124 ”"5491. .guwMqu-mfiw.’ . dJLcUc15-S1 «51,: JSJJ1J1JW1 OM151JLJLLJ1 a1fljflfijjy1 -3'9 3:51.115... ‘14.;4-1 ..3 {:3le —\' 353‘:- —3“ {-51:15- ‘1—1-x-M‘ —i 4:55.1- U53 as... ..UJJE 0155,1435 4.913.. 9.1.31...- u1fl1pbyw1’iya-r1 (QB... ’14....»2 -3 ML“ —3 ,w‘y —\' r'ii‘y’Uxaw —i 135...; 5&1)1J,f1-_>.11};1t.;1)§1QLMJJ'Yyn1y-zbyw1-3~y r3151:- -3' {53150 “4:14“: -t 0314;1- 01,-: dchw)1AaJJJJJJ1§1}lJ1.J 41,51'Yyau ”5.5 J51...) 0.1).; 91,51... —\'A r5211.» ‘14,..14 -3 féJLs... _3' p331» —\" r331). ‘14.:JJI. ...i 6’15““ J1»: ¢e§3)-’~U1fi¢°(ww L51» 0&5) 53133.4 firj‘fi'yyaa -Y‘l 1.29:“,ng PUB... ’11,»; ..3 rm» -1 r3315" —3' .r_5$1’.’14g4..2 ...1 4.5141) OM14); w «MUD-Q1; L’sb1p1y-zbyw1 '33..“ -g . (£15.. ’14,..1; _3 HUB» —V #31:» —\" (351)" ”As-w -i (a) 125 ( (.15-—-é‘.=--—+~°»4-bu:~9.) ) **%¥K¥¥¥X¥ 0.1. ‘e {Lb-‘Oybiwj‘ cake ‘2' Jfivwfifi‘ ulna) wY‘JSwAAS. 5.1.1. L51_H1»'1§_12J.u:$§9$)319¢. LJLL...1.: OJLJJ?J,1-&J-_Esj1 . J... ..‘UM o,1-__..__....: 1a,. (x 3 1.11, ( ub :11. ) ...- £,..,,,1),___1.~,,. ew‘ s‘fiJs‘fifikabwb-JH 05435;») .91» ‘53).‘53'3'1P-7-11 JJJ1JJ13351U-Jng). dub-3 p n rJfJLS‘c—1' ' .fJf5‘6‘bJ‘f-1 ' '5 J34~J1JS1-g “h” L$—""$'L‘J)J-’°‘ bub-”441534 ‘5‘“1 123-9“ ‘LxJ---3513~bu°1$~31'~51fi —i 1’ . 4.5.35 L1“ f")‘)"~"‘“ ' '5wa ...1 a u rJle’S‘—" 9 U Ué~_v ' ngJ~J1JA1-i . 1.1,. L,1446:.L;\.1H536.u,m,fi gmpuflbykfl -{3" c5 J3J~J1J§1_3 . . )‘Lré~_‘ rJrfiSLY f’JfM-i (3.) 126 : 4914413351w?kfiLuHLUaL$J-1w13fl4'3pyr4y 1;...1QJLJWJ1JJJLLLL1JL¢1LJ1Q>1$5J1SQ1033 -i i . J_____JJ1.JJ135.91U,J>. deJ~J1J§1_3 ' ' r-w‘ awe—r v a fJffl‘—Y I O rJf “.1 44.315.43.21.) JJ1J_--.N.L C154511u1fiylgfibgp1$$1 -fa ' ' 6J5J~J1JS1_3 ' . rJIJ‘ué"! -1' p D riofi1_-Y rJ). bub—i ..Ug--_-:.J 4.33} ”UL-L U015...“ 451.24..-1)1+.:_{ ‘1 (”’1' dub-3 ' . r-Jr2351—3’ ' ' r’xj‘ui’h-Y ' " 5J3J~J1J§1_i ana~J1}1-3 ' ' r‘rj‘ub-“e-Y " .' {-5951—3' " " rJyM -i " ' 1545-14» 41,51 -\ ' " r-bv“w”--Y ' ' H.051 -1’ ' ' (.1). M ...g (33) 127 WAS... aL 0,:13 c4519) Ltfibww1 ' Y5...“ -{ q J_-_.:)1J.J1-_-3:.c1w3. d 43.14.4551-3 ' ' r-‘rj‘u’z'fl -1' v I rJrJf‘S‘-v rJ). M-i 42.-.5 4.15),; 01» uJ1JJJ$OALT 61,411.911iéw1-o . J ------ ..3)1JJ13¢C1J,,J;Q.JJJ~J1)51 -3 ' ' f")°51w5*<-1' ' ' Fri-514‘ ) ' (A). M -i “Ll-13 45 w‘wx ayatwbww1d1é13w3U—o3 ' ' (”Jr M-I ' ' H.039 -3 ' ' fJfgré"'< -‘r 6J3J~J1J§1_{ 4.35 9,314... uJLyLS-tm 6.1; .uJDLquuals-fl ..01 ' ' 6454~J1)1—1 ' ' rJrfi‘uJJ'q-Y ' ' r9494" ' ' r-‘x M —i Mst. 05.45)- 41141 4.0.113 91155.: UJL cLS OgLufiLJLsa1 454-”,EL_03~ . " 5454~J1)51_3 ' rJrJ‘a5*-r -Y ' ' r’rfifl—Y rJ). M—i ..LaL uh “fig-151.191.191.1fifiu-bww1 (51).,c1JJL3 0295133 -02 " ’ ngJ-a41151-3 ' " ers‘u¢~—V ' . {av-35‘4" ' " erM -g 128 ; JJJ1JJ15391 WLLLHLL-wa1ug1394' 11;...» 'f")‘ 4;)1441131 0.5.3. a434~41j1_3 1 ' r—‘rj‘ué~—Y a - rJffi1—Y I a {J}- M—i MUD M5?! d3"? ‘JPjfiJWfl‘ r1?“ 0915‘} H)J1312«13m1$~31' 93.-.-31 4.3....» OJ_....”‘é3 0.)) L511)“; xJ1J1izs1ogJe.¢J3.J~J1)§1-3 . J . {Jyugbflq ' ' r-‘r2351-1' . . r—‘N-i 12.1-13.2 641.093.3114 .13... opus-3 an. #113,4w1gufibwuxuoy " ' 6JJJ~J1)1-1 ’ (Jyu—b-I-g—T ' ' 11023514“ " " fJJ“ «.13-g Ub’k‘Jfi‘w'L d1flw1gbfiprL-a1: LPW 05.5 1.131.“: aJfi f‘b‘jL-‘l' 3,.” --0A 4");JUJJ1JMQ 4. 5.11:0.)1494 " " 343J~J1)1-3 ' . 'rJrJ‘wb-H-V ' ' r’xfiLY 1) ~ . rJ)‘ M-i 131‘s 034.9.L131fiu 6%WJszbyw1kp} O1) 05).?) 1”“ apogij.Y)-~ ...o ‘1 ° 44:“ J1»: “fig-5» “‘J‘JT c‘fisJ ' ' “45.-41,51- . r-U-J‘u'é-H-V . . . (41*)35‘ —1" ' ' J). u -1 J»: ”9195 91:13.45 US$533 «15,-44 cubs-ea. ofibfi 611—215 L: on. ‘35:)3—‘1 . ' ' ngJauJbH-3 ' r-‘ru-éae—Y : : err‘S‘ -\' (w) "J’w-i 129 (( 01:12am) 451441.: 0.1.. 014-: J51 w). 45:21163Y1fi...o1..b 691:. «tutu-x31w“ 0,1 OWEJJhfib‘yw1 Qua-.51.; was-z c.1J---.k: w (#1).) 056.315.: 0.11., "'--—"-"217,_2;J,,.L.Mwu. 9.))wa da.;1J,,.bJ C-Loy153-ufi‘1--_J.LJ 45.9”.) OJgisuLThflbww1Jy)-’ ““1 0115:45123‘Sbwbww1 1 éfifir' 1651*" 531-43 ‘92-“ -'11 0.. w‘y‘ue-Lfi -1 55519—3 .m- -\" . (MB... “14:13. .{ 4.35 J» {afflu- d:.- ”5.2.35 9141,4451». 45w-105ux5 ‘hfisbaebww‘ u‘fl—I r r3315-‘1-e—Uo —1 r3151.» —3’ rm» -v 9J1.» ”Lu: _g #31), «0.4.4116. r1¥1J+fsj1ASJJJ1J1jT 315313.3wa1 —‘n' riJB...‘1.L.L:. ..3 r513“ —1 31331)- ‘14,,4; —3' who --1 (1i) 130 ; 45.1,}; awwuufiuywuflfl c-J gabuow1lezfl1syw1 $153,133.91 4,? ...1 i PUB... H.451; -3 r533“ -1 9315-‘14244 -\" (531:1- -£ .1: ----- 41.5.2145)qu {13451431319hHLwL5-1-1o PUB... ‘11,»: -3 #W—3 (53‘)- -3“ r331, ‘14,.13 -1 41:4: xijuuaww1 figu-‘js-w. ~11 (3&1). “14.1.2-3 p’ii‘y-Y rm» -- 3 (£15... ‘14,,43. -{ .J ____________ 4,1415)»; 01Ww'iwhfibyw1-1y PUB“ “1,4,3, -3 .m- -r rifle—1" r31y‘1qgw -{ Limb”; 01455155115114 0.4+; 4041313,,wa1 -'1A 9J1.» ".134“: -3 raw-v p.151:- —1" 15‘5" '11ng -i (10) 131 4.2.2....» J-_-:..,.,L 95:13 cgkfikfibyw1 " $5.4... -1 a H.115... ’14,,13. -3 #b—v «0 p91)» —3‘ p351:- “LL12: —i w «.15).,3 01:» gj1JJpJ1LTg1fiLLLLLy1$J1 ...y. r815... “11,41: -3 #b-1 p351:- —\" 3&1)»- ‘1-1a-w —i J____-.:...‘:1.,1.;:.,1; «Sc-.104}, W%L;HLUo1s-31JL§15¢:U ..y3 ”O {Mb-“14.44 —1 (Nb-4 rm“ -v {3.113. "4:44 _£ 125 c951... what-:13. 64.-1.51.1...3; Opt-.21 -3, x {.m- 11451; ..3 Mk-v {who -r 3531;314:4-4 —i W)» 03.13)- OJ1JLUJ13 0115....) UJLL‘LS ogLLfibyls-M OSJerEL, -y3~ riJls... ”LL: ..3 M~4 ..0 {~13- —\" {-331.1- ‘1-42-43- —i ”1&1 J 15% QW‘ W'1fiwlkwbww‘ 151): O‘Jfi- 5 112.-5‘55 -Yi rm... '11-: ..3 #b—1 r53‘J' -3' (n ) rfi"'"‘="‘"-i 132 ; 4__-SJ,,)1J oL'ipkaL'Hgfib gob-£14,394 641500154161), 6J)1J1Jc.,,..b1ougbywl1d1fiutfiijij -yo 9J1.» ‘14,,4-21-3 r5115“ —3 p331:- -\" r91)» "ate-u —i WU 04.1.. 1...... w» W921 rw 925,51; «,Juufiwww '1...» —v1 ' 4.2: ...Jb are; 0.)) J15.- f..iJLs...21.4.5.4.»2. __3 A» -x {who —¥' {5.51.}.‘1454-2 .-£ 435.5,: ngUoLi-HLrS-m 0.12:9 dwwfiw1p1ufibww1 -yy (5.115.. ’14,,4-2- -3 rim“ 4 (3315» —3” {35130.1un —i L 01)}.T,J:J1J),.L31’34315y1zfiLJN-1JM36 ”LS .151...ng .13.: rhbéL'YJ-an -YA 4.3)); JW1JM-3 L, 5.2150914”: 9,115“ “14%;“: _3 r1115“ —Y r3313- -3" .9515. ”4:41- -£ 03%43‘5b. deflB‘fiwbww‘ 035) “2 003: L34: wJJyT'Yw-a —Y a 41.1.: .551»: .5315,- u|JgTo|)s_____g, 1.4.5, 3.5.11.5..‘145M -3 rm" —1 353‘» -Y p‘ié‘y‘U-xéfi-i a}; 01,931.45 0131.:«1: 0.8.53.1 4.15).); $.11}...- 0551.335 514,351...) JLuafi): —A0 .m- _3' (3511» -3" r331). ‘14,!4‘1‘, ’i (\v) i ‘3’? ‘k‘g&] 133 ((J‘S5‘~Jz-?~5w"~w-)¢)) £¥5K¥*¥¥3¥:K*BEX*< — U -- g . u-Lm.) OJb31§AS;.L‘$-$1 ‘4 c441JrJrfi1-fijfi: 4.3L 1"“ v.50. «L:- t, 91.0.: erw-J__.L£J'1JLJ ¢JL....J-_,,3L.:Ua.s..:.. L541; J1J§1L, o--_....-:,13..).J . @fiifia 04.9.3 0641.3195‘; .J-xs.). (x) 1.1.1., ( 4.1.: (3.1. ) «NS, ¢,,\,,__.L°J,,6LH1,. new . J -------------------------- .41.:th 4.19),). 51....1155.» 91...: . 4.1)1JJ1iss1 95;? 6J1; {JfL ”5.15.3 01541-3193.: («LBJJJ'Yy.~ 3.5.. ‘ 0113:6535 and 0154133193; (Jaw 1J1? 1591:4519»: -M J_.._.._.JJ1JJ13&£1Q,J? f4). ans-3 a a rJfI‘S‘ -" . ' er51u‘3"-¢-1' ‘ . . rJ). M _i .15-..3» §¢?OJ1J1JJ-§1p 45.-“1 OS“); ’19,}: “9.3.3 JJ‘fi‘gf‘hww.‘ “51” -A1' . 4.35 LL: rJffiL-JJJL J___..JJ1JJ1§.191O“~’-e.rJ)cdo-Q_3 D l rJfJ‘S1_ ' ' erJ‘u-5-.—\' a434~41js1_£ ALT). «.94. #15: awj1éxfifijfl Gibb: 03.9.1 wuwww1 _ AJJ1JJ13351u-ag. 5J3J~J1J51-3 r-w‘uéa-z 4 a 2 391-59151 ..r rJJaM _{ (1A) 134 :JJ)1JJ1§C1&1U.,J::. ngstflL Ups.) 44:1.wa1 6...,ij {Eb-nu ...rJ). cM-1L5415pr. 1.11:1. (.55-“J. 6.8.31. @Jw1mgkg)fisp1 :5? ..Ag J-___J)1JJ1§.191 01:3. 543J~J1}1_3 ' fij‘wéJ-f-V I I rJfJSS‘ ...T " ’ r4). 4..» -1 J......- $.31. (2.11.: 9911.1.: C13451.LL:1y.,.. 6:43.} ongélstlAJ1-Ao JJ)1JJ13&s1U~>g5J3J~J1)§1_3 ' ' r-Uv" ”23..., -1’ D I I’ijzs‘ ..‘v fqu ...i .35).: 455,521.91» L,.....-....:..:z>..1 ongthw1dSm-1jzfi _}\1 " " VJ)“ «Lb-3 r-‘rx351-1’ rJrJ‘wb-‘H -1" 6J5J~J1J§1_i D J__.-J)1J135J}5. 91W 1......- ” >15.“ 05.9.5 oxuwywum deJ—IJJ‘}‘ -3 . ' fij‘U’éJ“ _‘ n ' rJffi‘ —" mags. 011:5); 5,1.» 0 4...; 9,413 fiJJJJLH-iicuow1 -AA J_.._J)1JJ11’5.91O,,J.3. 5J34~J1J§L3 Fry-*1 —1 a p rJfJS‘ —-Y . ‘3wa ...2 (1‘1) 135 . 4.2)‘44‘33‘ or“? quJbi‘L ang‘byw‘ WEAJJ'Yyflz r4). ww—wuelgeybcebx cub-3 ox\.¢wwvy,m —n JJJ‘JJb'Js‘ 05.5%. gJJJufijfl _‘ ' ' Hr)" U‘é": -\' ' ' r093“ —\“ ' " rJJob—B ..v 4.4.3...» «by; CJJo g‘J‘JJp. 4.1.2.”.T ‘5‘)... ”3.5.3 axhyistW‘ ..3 . J__.J)‘JJ‘3.19‘ L22“? ngJmJ‘);\_\ {ngb-M-Y I 0 erfl‘ -v . U {J}. M _i upoxhg‘is WJJ-E-‘J‘ 45%} 44)., we. a“) oxhy’isuow‘ JLS‘; 9.5L: ...qy J..-_J)‘JJL1119‘ U'“"¢f‘"”° ”.4 n I ny “’0..qu . . r.)y}~5‘_’_r dJ}J~J‘,§"i 4;;5;:Q__;:La.. 5.“:wa 45.4.: 43.6% and: OJJLLr-isng‘ ...q x ..ufiaal’izc‘ 05.5? anJ~J\)5\ _) f-‘xuné-I-e—Y a . {Jyj-‘S‘ a-Y p o r-‘f M -£ USJJyfiJ‘ 4.945 0‘15“) UM. u‘U OLL, U542») oJLHAcyw‘ ‘SJwWJ_E.L¢_QY J____._:.:...m.;}s. .45)\JJ‘__339‘ we. ngJan‘JS‘ ..3 ' rv‘x)‘ «5*- -\' furl.» ..r ' ' r4r21‘5‘—£ 41:.wa uMJLLJJ‘ calf.” UL») axL¢¢w\ ‘5‘)... 4.95}; 055‘)? .4” JJJ‘JJ‘SJR‘ 05.5%. u.a;.1.~.fij‘ .4 n , {4’23“ _‘ ' ' Hr“ --\" erJ‘ué-‘H -i (V) 136 :0 JJJ‘JJ‘EB‘ 0,93?de.")5‘ LUJJJlxbgbww‘ MECJJ.y’o—IJ o rJ). qabuaw‘ ‘5‘)... dSJJ‘J‘chb‘ UL.» 02.5.3 ongisuow‘ U‘xafifixgfijfiT ..qo J-_-_JJ‘JJ‘3:&‘ 0,45%. 5454....4‘)‘ .4 I. ' r’rj‘W 4' D D rJrfl‘ -i JJfiYLx‘fiy uni o‘SJlfi‘e-isfis‘ (93» 9+: )urc—b (kw-Jymwfl Liv-195‘ —11 J__...:)‘JJY5::;! 0.5:? 543J~J\J5\_‘ erJ‘uh-e —V n a erA‘ -T' (4).“ -1 $9.5: W‘ijy‘fi dJ‘SJ‘j‘uLU‘o‘Jjgg- «9.45413 up») oxbghww‘ Kg}: .33] 45)” (’5’ “2.5-": '5‘): ‘5)“4‘2‘3 ULJLt-‘T‘S J____.J)‘JJ‘3&$‘ 05.33. ngJauJbfl ..3 ) 2 PM" 02..., -\' fJf‘o—Q Y n v r-Jffi‘ —-£ ‘51__f._:b.....J)J_L:)Jl3 oaw‘ugisuow\ 63,...) aw; glgl...) 94).: H‘jL," 3).... ...qA 435)) JW.‘ J..._g..o.,.::_, O‘J-yTUx‘JxLa-L. 0|)...» 5.”; J____.;)\JJ\3:.;| 0.35%. 5.134....455‘ ..3 (429“ 0.54% -Y a , {’5935‘ _‘“ " " I’qu -1 ga‘J‘nW M‘Afigc‘i‘k garb)" a!» on) um\..._.nww\ “'qu -1 q 4-----3)°)J'L-H‘J #1....ngij J _____ ..JJ‘JJ‘EGs‘wJe. anJJaJ‘)“ ..3 . Hr)" era-H -" ' ' rJ). " | _‘v ' " f4,“ -1 J-____:,,5‘)5‘)r4).l., JJ‘SJL-Lfi)» 454.352,. um.) o‘SJU‘gfisfl‘-) . . JJJ‘JJ‘_.._5:&‘ 055?. aagaaa‘Jfl ...y {Jrj‘u’b-‘H “V ' ' r-‘xis‘ -\' Hf“ ...g (n) henmy‘ .. . . .fiu? ..d... -;w .. S. . .nuv V .., 137 Hum o‘SaLu—m Ham ”4% USLLD‘J taut: one J,‘ M); 6 ad 33‘». 0L.» 39L» «WJa‘ w? OJ “#qu 032--....k3 w 0“); 69gb 0.3m 4...; 44‘.) UNA) _______ .14;ij ngJij‘L 4-....e‘iv.) ULAJJJJLV-Q'wbpw.‘ . 0.5wa “hr“ 4,93.) Cap ¢Y\;3w-%“_J_LJ : 45.45).) 44-4WLT ”3.5.3 degfisyW‘JJyJJ glafiufiyfis ”5.15.3 O‘SJU‘Lg19(US.UJ‘r- )Ung. 5,,” a)»: _\ 4 (”‘3’ ‘\.:,,.L.: _y 655‘)» 4 H33“ —r PiJli."J,,J.& ...g \ )1“ . 034;) OJ‘J‘JJALS‘fiLngC-sa‘ US»); “1.5.23: OLA.) dahflgis‘yw‘ 9“,: ..3 . y . .UJSJ‘Snyfi‘w-JULJga‘. .0. rub-"4.4414 f1“). —\’ riJL'v -\“ fills. "434‘: -1 . J41")... Awkdngzowfi 64.:,‘..o\):\" 0315!}: ”mi oxbthw| .\ .r rSJU‘. "ng .4 Pm“ --7 0.. s":- -v (H) 138 _ _ _ . ‘ : 454,1‘.) 6.5.3.5)MQ‘ can.) ‘x‘awwwa‘JJy)J 9...} ngUpLLJHJSJLogJJ 0.4.31. www‘ Qk3)&\ 059' ..3 . i PUB“ “45.1.42...) (“‘5‘ 4 (56‘): —r fish-“4:434 J-___:.&Lub “and: Changsha. 9.4.2,.) afiiagig JLL:‘-3 . o 913.."ng —\ ,ms‘. —V (ii-“5- -\“ r335. "45.4.: -g . 4.13.3455} Lye-Lo 0:45.} oxbgasgpum 6w-‘fifi_} . 1 éé‘y"J¢-w -\ .00 pa"- -\' M» -t riJB... “45.4.4: -1 . . ° 0 °‘ . .‘- . ..szbtings. O‘WM ‘1’... ”JO—LLWJLM ) y PUB“ “4.3.1.3, ..3 rm» —V pa")- -Y’ 95"."434-‘3 -i .. _ , “uhqip EMU—Mk 1:". “45.155- 0‘46)" ‘5)" “L“ 9"”. wring. “hag -‘ rm» _ Y fa")- -\' rub. "4,4,3, .1 (w) 136 ;. .UJ‘JJBJJ‘ 0.9g. ngJj‘ LWJJAJLHJSUOLM‘ WEJJ.YM . f4)“ ngLyBM‘L‘ ‘5‘)! ASJ)|.J1J¢._._...M 01..» one.) deuzjsbpw\ g\fi&flfl&j,fi _q o J__-_JJ‘JJ‘3&&‘ 0,52. JJJJMJ‘j‘ _) C D rJy M -‘ rJrJ‘Lrb-‘fi -\" ' r’ris‘ -i afiflx‘fiw um 0541:5‘9325‘ (999 ‘m wt» (batmawfl ézrkj‘ an J..-_J)‘JJ‘.'§£:&‘ 09.3. ngJ~J\J6‘_3 r-Uv“M-'~e -Y D . (Jffl‘ u—Y rJf‘o-b ...i ungj: w‘ijylfl dJ‘sJ‘j‘JfiJLbfig MdJJJ‘S Us») oxbgisww‘ “1.3;: ..qy 45)” :5? 694‘: ab: w-J‘ta 0“,ij ‘5 J____JJ‘JJ‘3£2£‘ 0:42- 5454.“.1‘)” -3 1 ' r-‘U‘J‘ u-é-H -\' (’qu Y n 9 rJfiJ-‘S‘ —i L5!_¢.:LL.¢JJJJ.:)JL‘S quwaw! 03:) 0W} 4“...) o)” ruin-y?” -‘U\ .85); JW1 d_.,.a..>_2, o‘ijLfiJ‘Jfi‘w'L ob.» «JJ‘; J_____JJ‘JJB&&‘ 02:52- 6J3J4aabn _‘ ' " r-w‘ cab-a». —-Y a I r-Jffas‘ —‘~ . Q rJy‘o-b ...i ,¢\Jku.a$..2 M‘Lfiga‘k ngfij‘ my...“ Una.) oabflgisuokfl "1)..“ ...1 <1 4-—---‘5)5'l-+:‘) r’L“ 5L5”) J _____ ...3)‘JJ‘33£‘O=.J?ngJ~J‘)§‘ _, ' r’r)‘ cab-'2' -\' ' ' Hr ‘ ‘ -\" ' " fly“ .1 4----..)555‘) raft... afiS)hJ¢p drab}, ”3.5.3 ofi:\:’.5\g..h,t5|_3 . . JJ)‘JJ‘_..._3&9‘ 0,52. 5434.”.1‘)“ _} erJ‘U‘b'H "V n n nyjfi‘ —‘. rJf‘n-Q ...i 137 HUM-3 054‘—---=3‘ a—am ——~I'.—-—----—-- t-M'L: on». 1),! w“); 6 c-J ”3%,:- 91..» wt. «ls-um)! w C,“ may _______ JJJJngbeHL a-WB-JJ WJJJsbe-uhyw.‘ . 0.15wa 4%.,“ 4.3.9.) C-QeY‘yS-ufifl-JLJ , .51.); oJ_-aswLT aw d—Ubefisww‘Jp-fl c-a-‘U‘JS--_1J5\):5 U343) o‘SJt-s‘krafi ( ”5.155).- )&‘.+> 155),}; 0),): _\ .\ ’53". ".15-h: _) (55‘;- -\' PULS- -\~ J." 05.455 oJ‘Jbawbpéa-J 115.93: ‘Lgf": on.) a4Lfi‘5-‘iawl-A‘ L5", _} . x . 43:5 Jngyfi‘wwLJp'. .00 ru‘yWAg-u—x (55‘): —Y r-‘JL'x- -\" PULL. "..tg4A ..1 . J41)... u,4.d-J\Ss 44.1.5! oSJJJU‘);\" USU): an“) OJJL-aisgf‘é-S‘ -) .r PUB. "..I._,J-t -\ 9“» —Y (ii‘y -\" . {33‘}. “4,3443 -1 (H) co . “ J A5 L) digit-31,7 Una) oak-nab.- 4),.) t J!) .. ' " Mimfikbfig‘ofi _\ . 1 ° “ ”L ...J-bJOaULWLf riJL’u —\’ (35‘5- —\' pii‘J-“As-U—i .. ’ . .‘-‘ .0 . . .‘JW when but: \,.5uu!,:,. 9...»; 4.1.. J-“mLuU a) " E PJ‘s-014.34.; .4 rSJLSo —" (53‘5“ -\" r33". “4:4“: _£ “ " -‘“ .—\.1 (53» -\’ PUB. -r ' ' " BJH-y .y ° ' -\ . W'ngquaabhs-uy .LJJLij-JP u W. . PM.” "454‘; .I’) rSJLs- -y w”-* r1“). "45.142 —i . - wt.) oA’ ‘ o. ' L5 ‘J ‘41—; 9).)“ fiftk‘fg —‘ MJFO 4'9), J faJ rub - ‘v pa")- -\“ (”5. "Ag-.2 ..1 (w) 139 305-UL: OngL-tLT can.) oak-bywiJJyJJ uAu-tg 0,: ‘3 c-bfi 03.9.: ofiLu-‘is‘fw"Yy.-. _3 . 1 (JUL;- .‘Jgo‘u: -3 Nk—V .0. who -T' (3‘3"4-34'3 -z 4......» «by; 79L uJ‘JUp. OJJng‘fl 05.43.: afibg'icyw‘ -3 3. fills- "4,343 -3 flw-3 fifi‘y -\' pv‘y"-’-:J~fi -i .43-$1., .33.“.‘3; fljrkfl 45¢“! a», 0.3,;- U-mj oxL-‘isyL-M JLgbugL‘z-3 33 pa‘y"+.4«=- —1 (‘3‘)- -\' riJls- -3“ (MB... "QM-1 may... ngyLs-zu, 64.-4.2.331; on.) cab-inausL3 3 ‘. réJLsu “454-3. -3 riJLs... -3’ 355‘:- -Y fié‘y "4:412 -£ Jfiéfij ”‘4‘ 4.9.15 O‘JssJu-H" 331.5 03.1., can.) add. 4991-2! lSJ-u-fiu)__£'~¢_\ 3 3' O J ———————————————————————— M ..1-thaw.) 15% JLLJ-J‘ mac-1):.“ L’s-9.3 JJJLn-‘isyW‘ d‘fi ‘9‘»;‘3 MUS-331 rSJLs... "454-2 ..3 yw—3 355‘:- -\' ”35". "Ag-1.4:- -1 (NZ) 140 ; A545») 0.1-3.9ULT uLbJOJJLl-«KSUOW‘JWJJ “LAMA-$31553 45.5143) W\ a“ 6:4sz oxL-isupls-z! wfiuszvaij -3 3 o PUB- ”.94.; ..3 FUD... -3' 3313‘). —r r1§\5.'\4:,.1,3 _1 4:9..ku- um; 95¢“ 3:55;“ (gm we. )J-p Cb-Jyxzfijxrnfiek)‘ -H1 ..in -3' #‘y —\" #55,”..15-3-1 cam w‘b‘ .1;ij- galsflfflwbbfi? 4.9.4.9413 3.2.5 oxb-‘byLs-fl ‘Lufis -3 3y “”2” (5 $5235“: ‘5‘): dJ----”~%-: OLJLHT‘S PUB- “.94-5: _3 . P’JL" _‘, r355 —\” r15"; lqfl-.2_1 JJJJJJB OLA.) a.) Lu'é‘uraswL-A‘ 03.3: dQL$3JgLugons 955133;..- -3 3 A .155); J‘s-3‘ J-W UYJyTUZJUfiLwL, Ob.» 15M; de—Ibu-g.) FULL. -3' 3&5‘3- —\" r-ii‘J-"Ja-w—i snubs); cJJh 0““: Q-S‘J-Hcé‘-ki égfkfixfiyzfln JAJ~¢JB\-hmB-£\'Yy~ -3 3 c3 a—-—-——~3»-L.~u, rm rins- ‘ngu. -3 r’J‘.» —\’ {ii-”Jo —Y {35‘}. “.15-Lt...{ 43,5595 rJfL: gJCSJL-Ut'q); 454.331,. ”5.9.3 Orphan-919-33 . rAJLSo .‘JgJ-Q _) 33.5.18... -3’ {—3350 —Y (=35. "4:45—1 (X'O) .5.- . n. 3 WI... xérfi... ~ 141 x ‘Wx 05.125- JSL- a,L,,.:\-2 uni-2 9153.199 oLw-s: «M -.E; «bus-x5! :_-...-3 95‘ J)‘J__-.J 03);)..be 01.33.33 a». o---...:l.,~')LlS «mg-LL... “bu-Us. J-gdb.) t-QLHT «1...; JJ___-‘pd4g\)oflbi--cu-\w\,$ dL-J‘p- 9L»: JAS- (X )JA-Q» Go); 0143‘ JSLDJ--.-.EJ J». alfi‘}? "--§J:J o J—_—_ ‘wy -a-id-‘a Mb twa ..ka I. ( Ca’-..-—-.A$-a ) ¥¥¥Xfifi¥¥ war-WV ‘u0““\'\ o) —3 J‘w'Yoj‘fi‘S —3 Jr 4 JLu-ro M a or: —Y J‘w-o . ‘3—23 Ora—i d‘———~0'O 05‘):YL_Q :‘A-At uy-u—w Ob. —————— -.‘.'-" ’4 TV ,————:«$L Jun! rm ..3 ‘—----J=a-5h pub Ja‘ —\' ‘-----“'53° rub UL??? -\" JQ‘S_____M‘ J ‘1’) Ja -O (n) 142 ()S‘uwwwy-«w ) but“ )5... LAJLJ 4:...Jb-z-m J}'> .93») ‘5 9.3.2.39-“ {419" 5:334 Y i : J-«e—‘w UP ‘-—--553=: “3*” J3“ r333 “J)--.!-‘33 W ‘5‘}: '4 W‘fibu‘sfilfifi “JJ--.<-"‘3 o-~ G‘x-Y W‘oh-«T LIL" r3125 “yr-‘33 0‘ ‘5‘fi-r —"-~‘ o‘-~~T ub‘fifi»: “M43 on d‘x—i .54—Ha.» 3:): “)j-Q’j‘JaLe 95495 w; 6‘): 64.3....» ‘-1ee§-9 QaL: rye)" gala-e -) Y o ~--—..:s=« wast-,5», w 0.3;.» gag—2». . J; “mu o‘S—-—-‘4—~)J 9 Wee-x.) ‘w—k“ 98‘1‘4‘ ((J,,S)‘jsid.JUJ-JJ)}¢ 4d Ji- éLjain-lg‘e JBL‘ HM): £552.95 6bi3))) fUst'Mafi -3 riJLSuQ‘fi‘J-J‘b—Y 3593‘» d“)‘-’-3“-’" —\“ fi‘flX‘S—i ”Jab C-w‘ lay-5‘ uJL-«e 6553555¢wa 0‘45); $351.: “bili- pal-mu «by. -\ Y1 S‘ M-xz...mu>b\ djzé 4.43..- 4.3L» u‘yLs. a... W J__.._-: c—w‘ ‘L-‘i-«t‘ 1,5,}194 435‘ dfiss -\ w-‘de\ 11.9.3594. JYfi Jigs _" uLWJJJ‘SlSJJ‘J Jhao‘J‘Jg‘ J95 -3' w} cMJJ 015,514, 435! J» ..1 Y 44“.»;- Wain-#1633 1;..3‘15 rl-fl 9‘49: .1- o-tl-a: 9.9.1..”ij —\ YY 9439‘» flywflfi F‘M L,5”... 943-3. _3 955‘ 6M5 ..3" '33.“ ..1 {#11:sz We}: —o 345 J» r05 45...!- 4». 412g”: ML 9;}«3 99%)” 6*»"J—Ju‘o» d‘x. —\ YA ' {53‘}, Hag-1:. ..3 r33‘}.15\45\.u‘b ..3’ PJLS. 15‘ 54.15“: ..3“ .r-Jl$~o'\45u -1 (W) 143 ((J‘S-a'wflumfln *xx&xxx*x**x** 4A.”)J Jun-xwwmbu uLf-L: Job.) cL-J‘Ja. egg-:3 ub-z-flu-Sw‘ (ow-5 0354.3.9-9. ouwb . Law-b ) Jun-14ml. an.) .59-mum.- Lfib», $44.2, can; L’a‘u.>b‘lg) 5.35., f5 ”19.1.4: uLf-«b Ufi-qulggwb J__.-.&L: 4.115;»..19'. 9‘---:)S§)J 4,) _____ JrUSLL-t. ouagw¢JJJ USW“¢BJ‘JL&&5JJJ .331 Y 45‘ whats) Qfl%)———1—3w L-e-e WJLQ-«bgfw‘ -\ um. uni-4 1,14%;qu 015‘: 43344-34?qu U---.LAJOJJLL-3.cy\$-2‘-1 ”st-,53J‘SJLbJjLO M ‘5 )é )5 JESS-1 aways)" 03L“ 6999+: pie-3% ~16:ny c0195.... —\ Y . .19-'53 o...‘ aux-Abs. 15.0.195‘ dam-nymph; ok-J-JJM ) 45‘ an ( J.-_-.:‘ L);- (-’----r°-"~r‘5+)='5 dLékj‘ér. ‘-..--._+._,J‘JJ.$-¢ ..3-u. 13.1)Jafi Jun-wa‘p o-¢L~:)>.~35 ”5be -3 an“! aJyLHt‘S Q 4.3!};ng (J; 0454 GM“L,§\J:J*~‘ On USS-«.31.: ngJj‘é: _" fic-UJS»... JUS..." 06.)}9... I yL;‘J:pL&-c r1..- Obi-..3 ‘Laé-«S (Jo—Y fi-Jb &b&--‘J‘)§"k 15.1155 J-L‘: ‘W C)‘ -1 (A mu: Jun-1 064,“... Mm, 4.9;: -o as ""-‘J‘)§\L ...i .J 13,154,; 0.3;,6c OJ; W égrbj‘L-t uLf-wL‘JJ‘J-s -3 3'3 33“" ‘JXJ-fia- “Lu-4"”.- (\Y ‘i J‘JLJJ b.644- f‘ mm 5‘ «fiJWL: a...» —3 “343' .5‘)---_':.5 -3 ‘_....—.9.;)0 ‘ oob“Ofi—Y Ufboob‘o‘ W—t k————+=,- o . U‘Lfiw —o (M) 144 ((J‘Ss‘uz.» «Luz-w) i¥3¥¥ififi¥¥ W ”SEW éskj‘l-J «.5qu Y «9‘ w‘J_¢:i_-=L'—.JUJ‘)5‘L: 64.3: 9,—t-JU —\ H’ 11‘5".»1333'; ’EMLJLAJ cite—“bis: 3" m‘xm'wfi 6.09.3.3 ‘15)” 05-435 -\' 443x) ~ . kn u—v -r 19,0..b_3.3 owe—2 ‘———-:3xo . oj‘d‘w —o 1,143.11... 03.15.) 0544‘. 143.;L, 455:1“)?5 gwwwbbfks . J55. cat-£434 ..3 3'3“ . c-J oJ;_.____.__.____, ‘-—---‘3S%- 1" u‘xufiha‘ ‘92-; —3 Liana‘ ‘JALU. raj-$- ”15‘ —\' f‘ 03.1“.) $9.5.) 154-1.: -1 f‘ OJ” U-AJ ‘3‘ 44)).3)‘ "’5 ...o cymbkbfisw Lawia‘u: ash-h: 8’ 41‘ ciyyfiygu oaks: 9x451: —\ rs: c-J dJkJJS-e. ‘bnyksTLfifJ r1 athumlag 9);; -3 Wx‘m‘fl -r £23m . . tn u-.~: -\~ ‘93)‘0H‘3303 age-z ‘————e3)ao- oj‘ui‘w —o Y can] ‘4}: ”fie-41‘ “J"Jhabu’mm ‘53P)” ‘-: Wuwb‘b—i —) Yo ‘4 way-TL. w a»: ..3 cub-cg: f- .4535. ”)Lo‘ -3' Haw-“44:3 r355- 0‘45? —\" i" 4312‘.) gnu-3.: uJ-b -1 f“ o4), quid f" Qfisfiqalfi —o (H) 145 ((JIS-___5\__,:.?.;... «Luz-1%)) *¥**X*¥¥*i¥ %* 15:,63—0» 150151;: LAWL; 3' 1A w‘fipuwwwwu, .3933; _3 n c-J 045.3943? "legu- oL‘y-tbLJ---_S;J gLfJb‘J HES-«“43 Q‘s‘J-ub‘a w'bfi five-5 -} *e’rTO‘fi‘S -\’ 4.9m . . L7H o..~ -\" 1,3,0. .JL'Z3 .3 u- ..1 ‘43)- O ’1)‘U:~.H —o r‘ auxLML aw,»- —\ [.14. '° “‘JL‘A-jJ uJ-b -1 {A 0.5., $.11 '3‘ 9P)" ‘L-Jé —o ((o—--—§'U) 0"“ ‘42-'33” )) .’./.'./. ././.’./.’. J. . . ./ /./././.././.‘/././. ./ .. ./. JJUfiJJEyL .1995.) 03.11) @135- ..cho 413-, 4., Mb f,4}. “QB-.55 151,914!- w!gfl 015.51 L21...» LSD-:3 9‘55») ‘55? ‘Sg‘fl‘fi'f"! ‘1YA run-'XS —\ rut» -x 555‘.» —r r§\,.')l.\$ —{ o JJ‘Jw-‘u'fi My)“ ‘5’ GJL). WQ‘E’Q "1Y‘1 rfi‘y'l‘s ..3 593‘:- —Y M» -v PUB... ”)US -1 (To) a 146 (wt-Jig..- «Lu-u): )) 434.915.; 4M5 ,4: 4m... 65,) 0%., 6L2, fiwabuufl ..1 g . rUBM'XU ..3 14“» 4 .0. [who --r p'éé‘y'MoS-i 4y: 05 aefiuj‘ Q‘kfibfié amtfiad's—a—w 69—33; céJ—sw own-«53L —\ is PUB” ")L‘S .) ram» .4 93‘? —\" ras‘j:>’u6 ...i JWfijz/tfig JL...) . . 4., 0L..J‘.La..5:u)as lea 455W 9‘33 L543}; ffil‘ “Ii-fig“! —\ (Y réJLs... “.94.: _\ cm» —x 34‘.» —r {“50“ 4.: uLA: _{ 44:»‘3s5—p—Lohb‘y ‘4 Jaysfib. own... up, m-«ts-wuafi-w‘: :19" “WW —\ U“ rULs... “.z,,..\,:,_\ an» 4 {who -\" r33". "42:4,; ...i rJJdJJJJ‘M 0J5 WJ‘JJ‘}‘ 0.9+de9 Jb‘fifi‘fiwLHJuzfixfifJJJ -—\ ii JpTJky wlfl.‘ Q‘fifi r's,“)... “4,4,3, ..3 .0. (who —T M» -v riJLs... “.1:,J..t._{ (H ) 147 4y». gnaw». JFJmJJ’b-«tfih -\ io FUB“ “45.—L42-) rm» -v {54"}: -\‘ (5.5". “45.4.: -1 J___,:;JL,M5_;. J). ogTJJLQL‘fl 0:355 cam; glib». 4..» ”.95; _\ i'l riJLg. “J,:.L.1‘_) riJ‘sw —V {who 4' {53‘}, “J?!“LXC- .{ %*¥*¥*¥****¥%*¥**X%***¥**%¥X¥*¥*%¥*¥*¥%¥¥**X iflflflfiwflflflfiflwflflfiflflfififififififififi END *¥¥*fi%¥¥¥**¥ **¥¥. r)____.S.,:.:. O O C 0 O 0 C O O O O O 0 . APPENDIX 3 APPENDIX 3 GLOSSARY1 Attitude: This general term is used following Guttman's definition of an attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." For example, the attitude of a non-disabled person toward blind persons could be said to be the totality of behaviors that the person has performed with respect to blind. Attitude Content: The attitude content component refers to the actual item statements within an attitude scale. Attitude Scale: In this study an attitude scale is con— sidered to be a set of items which fall into a particular relationship in respect to the ordering of respondents. A set of items can be said to form a scale if each person's responses to each item can be reproduced from the knowledge of his total score on the test within reasonable limits of error. Attitude Universe: An attitude universe is that total combination of multivariate factors which make up the totality of behavior toward an attitude object. Content: Situation (action, feeling, comparison, circum- stances) indicated in an attitude item; generally corresponds to "lateral struction." Demographic Variables: In this study demographic vari- ables refer to certain categories of statistical data frequently used in sociological descriptions of persons. These variables are age, sex, level of education, income, geographic area, theological position, political party, and religious denomination. Facet Theory: Facet theory describes attitudes as multi- dimensional (i.e., multivariate). As such, facet design is a definitive relational system" by which lCredit is given to Maierle (1969) and Bedwell (1977) for most of the work in developing this glossary. 148 149 a non-metric statistical structure is defined by means of a semantic profile in a mapping sentence. Joint Struction: Joint struction is operationally defined as the ordered sets of the facets from low to high across all the facets simultaneously. The higher the score of the facet elements, the stronger the attitude. Lateral Struction: Lateral struction is the term given scores on the characteristics within the facet areas. Intfluamapping sentences illustrated in Figure 1 items F through J denote the attitude content for lateral struction. Level: Degree of attitude strength specified by the number of strong and weak facets in the member(s) of that Level; in the present system, six ordered Levels are identified: Level 1 is characterized by the unique member having five weak facets; Level 2, by members having four weak and one strong facet... Level 6, by the unique member having five strong facets. Map: See "Semantic map." Semantic: Pertaining to or arising from the varying meanings, grammatical forms, or stylistic emphasis of words, phrases, or clauses. Semantic Map: Two-dimensional representation of hypo- thesized relationships among six Levels and among 12 Level members. Semantic Path: Ordered set of Level members, typically six, such that each member has one more strong facet than the immediately preceding member and one less strong facet than the immediately following member. Simplex: Specific form of (correlation) matrix, diagonally dominated and decreasing in magnitude away from the main diagonal. Simplex Approximation: Matrix which approaches more or less perfectly the simplex form; existing tests (Kaiser, 1962; Mukherjee, 1966) reflect both order- ing of individual entries and sizes of differences between entries and between diagonals. Strong(er): Opposite of weak(er) -- term functionally assigned to one of two elements, to a facet expressed by its strong element, or to a Level member char- acterized by more strong facets than another Level 150 member; the strong-weak continuum is presently examined as unidimensional. Struction: See also "joint struction," "laterial strucé tion" -- semantic pattern identifiable in any attitude item, or the system of such identifications. BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersen, B.H. Attitudes of elementary teachers toward affective education: Guttman facet analysis. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Badt, M. Attitudes of University students toward ex- ceptional children and special education. Exceptional Children, 1957, 23, 286-289, 336. Barker, R.G., Wright, B., Meyersons, L., and Gonick, M. - Adjustment of Physical Handicapped and Illness: A survey of the social psychology and physique and disability. (rev. ed.) New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953, Bulletin 55. Bastide, R. and van denBerghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interactional behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-694. Bayham, Dorsey. "The great cities projects" Stirring in the Big Cities: The great cities projects, Ford Foundation Reprint from N.E.A. Journal, Vol. 52, no. 4, April 1963. Bedwell, S. K. The meta theory of facets: A structural approach to attitude measurement. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Begab, M.J. Impact of education on social work student's knowledge and attitudes about mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1970, 74, 801-808. Bray, D.H. and Jordan, J.E. Ethnic inter-group levels among New Zealand teachers college students. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 1973, 82, 27—- 266-280. Brodwin, M.G. A facet theory analysis of "what's in a name": Black versus Negro. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. 151 152 Castro, J.G. and Jordan, J.E. Facet theory attitude re— Educational Research,1977,6,ll,9-1l. Combs, A. . The Professional Education of Teachers. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 1965. Cornbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949, 368-385. Cowen, E. L., Bobgrave, P. H., , Rockway, A.M., and Stevenson, J. Development and evaluation of an attitudes to deafness scale. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 1967, 6, 183-191. Dickstein, J., and Dripps E. An analysis of attitudes of acceptance-rejection towards excep— tional children. Master of Education thesis, Boston University, 1958. "Educational Statistics", Iranian Ministry of Education, Tehran, Iran, 1976. Edwards, A. L., Kenney, K. C. A comparison of the Thurstone and Liekert techniques of attitude scale construction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1946, 30, 72-83. Elser, R.P. The social position of hearing handicapped children in the regular grades. Exceptional Children, 1959, 25, 305—309. Elizur, D. Adapting to innovation: A facet analysis of the case of the computer. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1970. Felty, J.G. Attitudes toward physical disabilities in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. Fenderson, D.A. Attitudes toward the handicapped. Minnesota J. Educ., February 1964, 44, 27 and 33. Foa, u,c, The contiguity pminciple in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 229-238. Foa, U.G. A facet approach to the prediction of communalities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220-226. Force, D.G. Social status of physically handicapped children. Except. Child., December 1956, 23(3). 153 Frenchette, G.J. Attitudes of French and English speaking Canadians toward West Indian immigrants: A Guttman facet analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Gardner, J.W. Self-renewal: The Individual and the Innovative Society. New York: Harper and Row, 1963, p. 15. Glass, V.G. and Stanley. Statistical Methods in Education and Psychology. Prentice-Hall, Inc., London, 1970. Gottlieb, K. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward mental retardation in Colombia: Content, structure and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Greenbaum, J.J. and Wang, D.D. A semantic differential study of the concepts of mental retardation. Journal of General Psychology, 1965, 73, 207-272. Guttman, L.A. Basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 1944, 3, 139-150. Guttman, L.A. The Cornell technique for scale and in- tensity analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1947, 7, 247-250. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954-55, 18, 395-404. Guttman, L. A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P.F. Lazarafeld (Ed.), Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences, 1954. ' Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. American Sociological Review, 1959, 24 318-328. Guttman, L. The structuring of sociological spaces. Trans. 4th World Congress of Sociology, Int'l. Social Assoc., 1961, 3, 315-355. Haring, N.G., Stern, G.G. and Cruickshank, W.M. Attitudes of Educators toward Exceptional Children. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 1958. Harrelson, L.E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitude to- ward the mentally retarded in Federal Republic of Germany: Content, structure and determinants. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1969. 154 Hotelling, H. The selection of variates for use in pre- diction, with some comments on the general problem of nuisance parameters. Ann. Math. Statist., 1940, 11, 271-283. Hoyt, C.J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. In W. Mehrens and R. Ebel (Eds.) Principles of Educational Psychological Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. VHusen, T. International Study of Achievement in Mathe- matics: Vol. I and II. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967. Jordan, J. E. Attitude behavior scale -- MR (ABS-MR). East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1967. Jordan, J. E. Guttman facet design and development of cultural attitude toward mentally retarded persons scale. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1969, 1970. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin America Studies Center, MiChigan State Univer- sity, 1968. Jordan, J.E., Vurdelja, D. and Prazic: B- Guttman facet theory analysis of attitudes toward retardation of Yugoslav mothers of mentally retarded and nonretarded, 1969 (in press in Yugoslavia). Jordan, J.E. Attitude behaviors toward mentally retarded persons: A cross-cultural analysis. Final report, U.S. Office of Education, Grant No. OEG-0-8-00126- 0197, Project No. 7-E-126, 1970. Jordan, J.E. Attitude-behavior research on physical- mental-social disability and racial-ethnic differences. Psychological Aspects of Disability, 1971, 18(1), 5-267 Jordan, J.E. A cross-cultural facet theory paradigm for studying attitude-behaviors toward race-ethnicity- caste-tribalism. Abstracts of Proceedings. XX International Congress of Psychology, August 13-19, 1972, Tokyo. 155 Jordan, J.E., Adis-Castro, G. and Zuniga, E. Construccion de una escale transcultural de comportamiento actitudinal hacia el retardo mental de acuerdo con la teoria de facetas de Guttman. Revista Inter-Americana de Psicologia, 1974, 8, 1-2, 1-23. Jordan, J.G. Attitude-Behaviors toward Educational Change in Latin America, Michigan State University, 1975. Jordan, J.E. Facet theory and the study of behavior. Unpublished, 1976. Jordan, J. and Guttman, L. Facet theory and cross-cultural research. Unpublished, 1976. Jordan, J.E. and Guttman, L. Facet theory and cross- cultural research. Unpublished, 1977. Kaiser, H.F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kaple, J. Development of an attitude-behavior toward drug users scale employing Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Kuder, G.F. and Richardson, M.W. The theory of the estima- tion of test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 151-160. Kvaracens, W.C. Research in special education: Its status and function. Exceptional Children, 1958, 24, 6, 249-252. Kvaracens,_wq C. Acceptance, rejection and excep- tionality. Exceptional Children, 1956, 22, 328-331. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 1932, 22, 5-43. Maierle, J.P. An application of Guttman facet designed multi-dimensional attitude-behavior scale of inter- national locus of control. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1975. McGuire, V.J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindsey and E. Aronson (Eds.). The Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading, Mass.: _—_ Addison-Wesley, 1969, Vol. 3, 136-314. McNemar, CL Opinion-attitude methodology. Psycholggical Bulletin, 1946, 43, 289-374. 156 Mendelsohn, H. A sociological approach to certain aspects of mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1954, 58, 506-510. Monbeck, M. E. The meaning of blindness: Attitude toward blindness and blind people. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. Morin, K.N. Attitudes of Texas-Americans toward mental retardation: A Guttman facet theory analysis. Un- published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer- sity, 1969. Murphy, A. T., Dickstein, J., and Dripps, E. Acceptance, rejection and the hearing handicapped. The Volta Review, 1960, 62, 208-211. Murphy, A.T. Attitudes of educators toward the visually handicapped. Sight-Saving Review, Fall 1960, 30(3), 157-162. Nikoloff, O. M. Attitudes of public school principals toward the employment of teachers with certain disabilities. Rehabilitation Literature, 1962, 23, 344-345. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G. and Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measure- ment of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Poulos, T.H. Attitudes toward the deaf: A Guttman facet theory analysis of their content, structure and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Saunders, F. F. Attitudes toward handicapped persons, 1969 (rev. ed. 1975). R.E. Research Assoc., 4843 Mission Street, San Francisco, California. Semmel, M.I. Teacher attitudesanuiinformation pertaining to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 63, 566-574. Shaw, M.E. and Wright, J.M. Scales for measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Siller, J. and Chipman, A. Attitudes of the nondisabled toward the physically disabled, 1967. 157 Stern, George G. Measuring non-cognitive variables in research on teaching. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Edited by N.L. Gage. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963, 404. Thurstone, L.L. Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of Sociology, 1928, 33, 529-554. Thurstone, J.R. A procedure for evaluating parental attitudes toward the handicapped. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 64, 148-155. Thurstone, J.R. Attitude and emotional reactions of parents of institutionalized cerebral palsied, re- tarded patients. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 227-235. Ward, J.H., Jr. Multiple linear regression models. Computer Applications in the Behavioral Sciences. Edited by H. Borks. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1962. Warren, S.A. and Turder, D.R. Attitudes of professionals and students toward expectional children. Training School Bulletin, 1966, 62(4), 136-144. Williams, W.S. Attitudes of black and white policemen toward the opposite race. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Wolf, P.M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (Ed.) International Study of Achievement in Mathematics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967, 109-122. “I1111111111111“