). The a beWeen inter and certain d both value an The s ”an"? of . attitudea -t0\ In“Persanfisq at“tildes-rm? Qiestionnaire blind‘PeFSOns “Mammal ‘ rehabilitatio ‘ ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENTIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, BLIND PERSONS, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION AND THEIR DETERMINANTS AMONG VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS IN THE STATE OF KANSAS by Robert Erancis Dickie The major focus of the study was on the relationship between interpersonal values, personal contact, attitudes, and certain demographic variables. The assumption was made that both value and contact serve as determinants of’attitudes. The study was conducted in Wichita, Kansas in 1965.1 A battery of six research instruments consisted of: (a) attitudes -toward-education scale, (b) the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values, (c) the personal questionnaire, (d) attitudes-toward-handicapped-persons scale, (e) the personal questionnaire (handicapped persons), and (f) attitude-toward- blind-persons scale. Respondents were selected from known occupational groupings in society: (a) special education and rehabilitation (SER), (b) regular education, (c) managers and executives, and (d) laborers (white and blue collar workers). 1This study of attitudes toward education and toward handicapping conditions is currently in progress in various countries in EurOpe, Latin America and Asia under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan ofHMichigan State University. Tze test bate} malts) f’ ,9 battery “‘5 The shec social'PSycholc tune as inf 11.19! such as frag“; there was a sig quency and fa“ sans and blind relating to cor. attitudes towar It was h disatled person titral, the E0? :isa'aled person cement was fav. :ariimed. It. was a :naracterizea t‘J Sarative value ability was via 1 ‘T‘ ‘ mes“ persona Robert Francis Dickie The test battery was administered to 391 adults (182 males and 209 females) from Wichita, Kansas. Administration time for the battery was approximately two hours. The theoretical reference fbr hypothesis construction was social-psychological, specifically relating to intergroup atti- tude as influenced by interpersonal values and contact variables such as frequency, enjoyment, and.ease of avoidance. As predicted, (there was a significant positive relationship between contact fre4 quency and favorable attitude scores toward both handicapped per- sons and blind persons specifically. However, the hypothesis relating to contact frequency and progressive and traditional attitudes toward education were not supported. It was hypothesized that the more frequent the contact with disabled persons and with education, both progressive and tradi- tional, the more intenSe would be the attitude statements toward disabled persons and education, regardless of whether attitude content was favorable or unfavorable. This hypothesis was not confirmed. It was also hypothesized that the SER group would be characterized by an asset value orientation rather than a com- parative value orientation in terms of the way that physical dis- ability was viewed. The Benevolence sub-scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values was used.as a measure of asset value ori- entation while the Leadership and Recognition sub-scales were used to measure comparative value orientation. The SER group did tend to score significantly lower on the Leadership value than other occupational 1 found on eithc It was we favorable scale, on the she-attitude- :‘ze 833 group Ward-sweat: group did attitudes towa less favorable 5° Siénificant the disabled. T30 fur variable, Such control Praeti change, It Ha orientation va “(Nudes t0.“ 36551“ educa Robert Francis Dickie occupational groups. No significant group differences were found on either the Benevolence or Recognition value scores. It was further hypothesized that the SER group would have more favorable attitude scores on the attitude-toward-disability scale, on the attitude-toward-blindness scale, and on the progres- sive-attitude-toward-education scale. It was hypothesized that the SER group would score lower on the traditional-attitude- toward-education scale. It was found, as predicted, that the SER group did tend to demonstrate significantly more favorable attitudes toward the blind, toward progressive education, and less favorable attitudes toward traditional educational practices. No significant group differences were found for attitudes toward the disabled. Two further hypotheses were related to change orientation variables such as health practices, child rearing practices, birth control practices, automation, political leadership, and self change. It was found that persons who scored high on these change orientation variables also demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes toward disabled persons, blind persons, and toward pro- gressive education practices. Persons scoring high on these variables, also held less favorable attitudes toward traditional education practices. Two final hypotheses were concerned with the relationship between attitudes and the respondent's primary contact groups. Robert Francis Dickie It was hypothesized that persons with primary educational experi- ence at the elementary level would hold more positive attitudes toward disabled and blind persons than would persons whose primary experience had been at other levels of education. It was also hypothesized that persons with primary contact with the blind versus other types of physical handicaps would hold more positive attitudes toward the blind. Neither of the above hypotheses were confirmed. A Statistical techniques included analysis of variance, anal- ysis of covariance (two-way analysis of variance), multiple re- gressions, and multiple, partial and zero-order correlations. Various value, attitude, and demographic comparisons were made between sex and occupation. A finding of general interest was that females scored significantly higher on Benevolence value than males. Females also demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes toward the disabled, the blind, and toward progressive education practices than males. These findings are similar to Felty's (1965) study in Costa Rica and Friesen's (1966) study in COlombia and Peru. AN INVESTIGATION OF DIFFERENTIAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE PHYSICALLY RANDICAPPED, BLIND PERSONS, AND ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION ' AND THEIR DETERMINANTS AMONG VARIOUS OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS IN KANSAS By Robert Francis Dickie A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University _ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Elementary and Special Education College of Education 1967 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to the members of the advisement committee for this dissertation. Dr. William Durr, Dr. Arthur Seagull, and Dr. Donald Burke have given their support at critical stages of the project. Dr. John E. Jordan, in his capacity as committee chairman, has consistently exceeded the responsibilities of his position. He has been a tireless counselor, anCinsightful teacher, and a valued friend. Despite the press of his many and varied activities, he has always been willing to provide advice and encouragement when it was needed, which was frequently. Without his infectious enthusiasm and sensitive prodding, this thesis would not be areality. A I am grateful to the late Dr. Martin F. Palmer, Director of the Institute of Logopedics, who provided the time and Oppor- tunity for the collection of much of the data. Dr. Palmer's active support of staff research and the resultant atmosphere created at the Institute of Logopedics, was both inspirational and practically conducive to maintaining one's level of research activity; For the actual collection of the data, I am grateful to a number of organizations in Wichita, Kansas. Wichita State Univer- sity provided the majority of the SER and E groups. Numerous .local service and professional organizations participated in the collectiOn of the M and L samples. A list of these organizations 11 would include: Wichita Lions East, Wichita Lions Central, Wichita Air Capitol, the Wichita Optimist Club, the 20-30 Club of Wichita, the Downtown Businessmen's Association of Wichita, the Wichita Personnel Managers Association, and the Wichita Division of Unemployment Security. A special word of thanks is extended to the "behind”the scenes" workers: Miss Katherine.Morris who did a prompt and skillful job with the scoring of all raw data; and Miss Susan Speer who assisted with the programming at the Michigan State University Computer Center and was responsible for running the author's data when it was impossible to get back to the campus. Their contribution to the study far exceeded their monetary reimbursement.~ Lastly, I owe a large debt of gratitude to my wife, LaFaye, and.my sons, Torin and Brian, who have suffered through an extended period of physical and emotional strain with under- standing and dignity. I thank them now for their encouragement and support, without which this project would have been impossible. iii PREFACE This study is one in a series, Jointly designed by several investigators as an example of the concurrent-~replicative model of cross cultural research. A common use of instru- ‘mentation, theoretical material, as well as technical, and analyses procedures was both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many respects although the data were different in each study as well as certain design, procedural, and analyses approaches. The Specific studies are discussed more fully in the review of literature chapter in each Of the individual investigations. iv TWBLE OF CONTENTS AcmowIEDGENENTS.................. PREFACE LISTOPTAELES................... LISTOFAPPENDICES................. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. .‘. . . . o o . . . o . . . . Nature of the Problem.. . . Statement of the Problem. . Definition of Terms . . . . Organization of the Thesis. II. REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH . . . A Theoretical Framework for Attitudes Toward fiducatione e c e o o e e o Attitudes Toward the Disabled Peer GrouP StUdieSc e o c 0 Parental Attitudes. . . . . Teacher Attitudes . . . . . General.Attitude Studies. . . Theoretical Framework for Research in Special Education and Rehabilitation. Theoretical Base of the Study . . . Values. 0 o o o e e o O o c e Attitude Intensity. . . . . Personal Contact. . . . . . The Measurement of Attitudes. General Considerations. . . Scale Analysis. . . . . . Michigan State University Cross-Cultur Studies 0 c o o e e o o e o e e e 0 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . . 00.0 boob 00.00 Q0000. 900000 .9000. o 0450 o e o 0100 o o o so 0 e 0 so 01D. so 0009. l 0 we also 0!}. _ Research Pepulation . . . . . . . . . Selection of Variables. . . . . Attitude Toward Physical Disability . . O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O Page ii_i_ iv ix xiv Chapter Attitude Toward Education. . . . . The Intensity Scales . . . Attitude Toward Visual Disability. Interpersonal Values . . . . . . . Personal Contact Variables . . . . Contact with Education . . . . . Contact with Physically Disabled . Preferences for Personal Relationsh Institutional Satisfaction . . . . Change Orientation . . . . Demographic Variables. . Religiosity. c e o o o o P Collection of Data . . . Statistical Procedures . Descriptive. o c o 0 Mean Difference Analysis. Relational and/or Predictive Major Research Hypotheses. . . . Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency, Intensity, and Attitude Scores . . . . . Hypotheses Related to Attitudes and Value SCOI‘OSsoeee. o so 0 Hypotheses Related to Change Orientation and Attitude Scores. a o c o o e o o o 0 Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Those Workin Directly with Disabled Persons (SER§.. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . e . o . . e e . o s . e . OOoooooi-hooeooo. oeoeooe moeoeoo O o b A ,4 sq In (D (D O oooooooo.oooooooco 00.000000000000000 Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . . . . . Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Between Interest Groups, Male and Female respondents .-. . . . . Summary of Descriptive Data in TabIGSS’Bo ooooooeo Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differ- ences and Correlational Analysis H‘la o o H-lb H-2a H-2b H-Sa H-3b H-4a H-4b 0000000 0000000 00.000000 00000000 00000000 000.0000 00000000 0.00000. 00.00.00 00.00000. 00.000000 00.00.00. oooooooso coo-Goose vi 80 84 84 Chapter H-5b o I O o c o o o o o o o O H“ 09 o o e o o e o o o o e o H’ as o o o e o e c o o o o o H‘6bo o o o o e o c e e e e 0 Summary of Zero-Order Correla- tions Between Attitudes and Values. b c o e o e e o o o e Hypotheses Related to Charac- teristics of Persons Working Directly with (SER) e o c e c o o o o o e o H’7ac o o e e o o e o e e o o H- be c o e o o c c e e o o c H” o c o o o o o o o o o o e H-980 e o c c o c o o e o o o H-gbe o e e o o e e e e o 0.0 H“109 o I o o o e o e e o o o H-110 o o o o e o e e o c c 0 Differences Between the Various Occupational Groups on Mean Scores on the value Subscales H-120 e o o e c o o c e e H'l}. o o o o o e o o o e e e V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMIENDATIONS . . . Part I: Summary of Theoretical and Methodo- logical Issues . . . . . . . . . . Summary Of Theory. 0 e e o e e e o a Summary of Hypothesis Construction . TeChnical PrOblemS o e o o o o e o o Instrumentse o o e e o 0 Sample 0 o o o e o o o o c o c o o 0 Summary of Statistical Procedures. . Part II: Discussion of the Hypotheses . . . . Hypotheses Relating to Contact Frequency and Intensity (H-l). . Contact Variables and Their Rela- téogship to Favorable Attitudes Value Variables in Relation to Attitudes (H’3 to H‘s) o o o o o Attitude Scores as Related to Change Variables o o c o e e o 0 vii Disabled Persons. Page 108 109 111 113 115 116 121 152 153 154 Chapter Hypotheses Related to Character- istics of Persons Working Directly with Disabled Persons (H‘? to H- 11). o o o e o o o e o o Hypotheses Related to Primary Educational and HP Contact_ (H-12,H-13)ooooooooooo Part III: Recommendations Recommendations Relating to Sampling Recommendations Relating to Analysis Procedures. . . . . Concluding Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . Sex and Occupational Group Interaction. . Relationship Between Theory and Results . References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 156 158 161 161+ ’ 165 166 168 193 LIST OF TABLES Table l. 2. 8. 9. 10. 11. Distribution of respondents according to sex and interest 8rOUP o e c o o o c o o o o e o o e c 0 Occupation composition of the total sample by sex and interest group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and F statistics in respect to three demographic— variables for the four occupational categories 9 o o e o e e o o e c o o o o o o o o Duncan's New Multiple Means Test applied to the means of education scores for the four occupa- tional 3rOUPS. o o 0 one o o o e o e o o o o o o (Duncan's New Multiple Means Test applied to the means of income scores for the four occupational groups 0 e o o e e o o o o o e o o o e o o o o o Duncan's New Multiple Means Test applied to the means of age scores for the four occupational groups 0 c o e e e o 0.0 e e c c o o o e o o e 0 Interpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment. . . . . . . . . . Interpretation of income scores in terms of act- ual income level 0 e o c o c o e o e o o o o o 0 Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comp paring high and low frequency of- contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale C O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 ‘Means, standard deviations, and F statistic com- paring high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the progress- ive-attitude-toward-education scale. . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comp paring high and low frequency of. contact with education with intensity scores on the tradi- tional-attitude-toward-education scale . . . . . \‘ ix C.) CQ 0 85 86 89 9O 91 91 92 92 95 96 Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.) 18. 19. 20. 21s 225 Zero-order correlations between content and intensity scores on the attitude scales for the different occupational groups . . . . . . . . . Multiple correlation of combined contact variables with ATDP, ATBP, and toward education (progressive and traditional) . . . . . . . . . Partial correlations between ATDP, ATBP, and attitude toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to contact variables. . Means, standard deviations, and E’statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and ATDP score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores on'Leadership value and ATBP score. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F’statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and progressive-attitudes- toward- education scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F’statistic comparing high and low scores on the Leader- ship value and traditional-attitude-toward- -education Scoreso o e e o e o o o c o o o o o 0 Means, standard deviations, and F’statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the attitude-toward- disabled-persons scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F'statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the ATBP scale. . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and'F statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the progressive-attitude- toward-education scale. . . . . . . . . . ,,, . Means, standard deviations, and 2 statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the Traditional-attitude- toward-education scale. . . . . . . . . . . . Page 98 100 101 . 102 103 104 104 105 106 107 107 Table 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. Means, standard deviations, and E’statistic com- paring high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the ATDP scale . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and'F statistic com- paring high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the ATBP scale . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E’statistic comp paring high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the Progressive-attitude-toward- education scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F’statistic comp paring high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude- toward education scale. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, andIF statistics for Benevolence value scores, ATDP scale scores, progressive-attitude-toward—education scale scores, and ATBP scale scores for males and females.....s.s............e Multiple correlation of change orientation variables with ATDP, ATBP, and attitude toward education (progressive and traditional). . . . . Partial correlations between ATDP, ATBP, and attitude toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to change orientation variablGSCOccoceoooeeeccceooe Zero-order correlations between ATDP (content) and the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Value Scaleee.e...s.......e...... .Zero-order correlations between attitude toward -education (content) and the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal: Value Scale. 0 a c o e c o o 0 Means, standard deviations, andlg statistic for ATDP scores for the four occupational groups . . xi. Page 108 109 110 110 112 114 115 118 119 122 Table 33- 34. 35- 36. 37- 39- 40.. 41. 42- Means, standard deviations, and‘F statistic, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for ATBP scores for the four occupational groups . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and'g statistic for Benevolence value scores for the four occupa- tional groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E'statistic for Recognition value for the four occupational groups 0 e e o o e o o o o e e o o c c e t e o 0 Means, standard deviations,‘§'statistic and. Duncan's Multiple Means Test for Leadership value for the four occupational groups . . . . . Means, standard deviations, F'statistics and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for progressive- attitude-toward-education scores for the four occupational groups. 0 o e o o o e o o o c 0 0'0 Means, standard deviations,‘§ statistics, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for traditional- attitude-toward-education scores fer the four occupational grOUpS. e o e e e o o o o o c o o 0 Means, standard deviations, E'statistics, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test related to four change variables for the four occupational groups C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 Means, standard deviations,'§ statistics, and Duncanfls Multiple Means Test related to con- tacts with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons for the four occupational grOUpS o o o o o o e o o o o o o e c o o e c c a Means, standard deviations, F statistics, and ' Duncan's Multiple Means Test—related to three value variables for the four occupational groups 0 e o o o o o c c o o o o o e o o e o o 0 means, standard deviations, and E’statistic for ATDP scores for the primary educational contact groups 0 o o o o 0 eye 0 o o o 0 0,. o o e o e o xii Page 123 125 125 126 I27 128 129 131' 135 134 Table 43. 44. 45¢ ’46 47° 48. Means, standard deviations, and‘F statistic for attitude toward blind persons scores for the primary educational contact groups . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F'statistic for attitude-toward-blind-persons scores for pri- mary handicapped persons contact groups. . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and number of dents for 70 variables by total, male and respon- female reapondents for the SER occupational gTOUP. e o o o e o o o o o c e_o o o o e 0 Means, Standard deviations, and number of ’dents for 70 variables by total, male and female reapondents for the E occupational Means, standard deviations, and number of dents for 70 variables by total, male and female reapondents for the M.occupational Means, standard deviations, and number of dents for 70 variables by total, male and female reapondehts for the L occupational xiii respon- group. respon- group. respon- group. Page 135 156 App 0 App» App 0 Apps .A LIST OF APPENDICES A. StatisticaIMMaterial 1. Means, standard deviations, and number of respondents for 70 variables for the total sample, males and females by occupational group B. Research Instruments 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 7. Attitudes Toward Education Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Personal Questionnaire - Handicapped Persons Attitudes Toward Blind Persons Definitions of Disability 0. Variables Administration Procedures, Code Book, and Data orms 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 7. Basic Variables of the Study Administration Procedures Code Book Special Instructions for Scoring Kansas Data Data Transcription Sheet FCC I and FCC 11 Variable - Computer Print-Out Code Form - Administrator's Summary Sheet Procedures for Producing Item Directionality xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Basic to the effective expansidn of existing educational programs and likewise to the development of new programs in special education are the prevailing attitudes1 within the community toward the handicapped. This handicapped group in- cludes both those with physical impairment2 and those with vary- ing degrees of intellectual limitation.3 In order to intelligently plan Special education programs, both in terms of basic develop- ment, as well as curricula content, emphasis and direction, it is essential that we be adequately appraised of the existing attitudinal structure within the community. It will be the community, with its attendant attitude structure, that will be called upon to support, both financially and intellectually, educational programs for the handicapped. In addition, it will 'be this same community to which the handicapped individual must effect an adjustment, whether successful, marginal or unsuccess-' ful. Such an awareness of community attitudes will allow for 1Defined according to Guttman as a "totality of behavior in respect to an object" (Guttman, 1950). See section on Definition of Terms, page 8 3See section on Definition of Terms, page 8 Pith r the attztuces 1 Changing he of Cesira‘sl fiece of the prob P150116: heal: “15301“ cone or Children would have c‘ these chilcr ities common Nurse:- mi‘m (Bark (1011:“, 1957 “3-20.18, 195 tec either the structuring of programs to take certain of these attitudes into consideration, or to facilitate the process of changing negative attitudes in order to initiate the development of desirable educational programs for handicapped individuals. Nature of the Problem Recent publications point to the increasing magnitude of the problem of the handicapped in terms of future program needs. Davis (1963) alludes to the fact that medical advances, and their subsequent dissemination throughout the world via public health agencies, have markedly reduced death rates. A major consequence is a considerable increase in the number of children with physical disabilities who in previous years would have died in infancy (Meyerson, 1963, pp. 2, 3). Many of 'these children manifest severe handicaps with multiple disabil- ities common. Numerous researchers in special education and rehabili- tation (Barker, et a1, 1953; Berreman, 195A; Force, 1956; Cowman, 1957; Lapp, 1957; Haring, et a1, 1958; Miller, 1956; Simmons, 1955; Soldwedel and Terrill, 1957; Wright, 1960) have demonstrated the significance of attitudes in the acceptance of handicapped persons in certain social and educational settings. Very little systematic research, however, has been directed to uncovering factors which are instrumental in the development of attitudes toward the handicapped. .More specifically, what importance can be attributed to such factors as (a) the amount of contact a person has had with the handicapped, (b) the value orientation of the person, (c) the existing social structure within CU level, or process 0 These att. the nature and rehab: have seen to handles are negati coived, ha the handle The Ward the Maps in t instruments ”“0de 11'. toward bl in within cultural and sub-cultural groups, (d) socio-economic level, or (e) the level of educational attainment, in the process of deve10pment of attitudes toward the handicapped. These attitudes, in turn, to a great extent, will determine the nature of the response to programs of special education and rehabilitation. Areas where public attitudes are positive have seen rapid growth in the range of services made available to handicapped individuals. Likewise, areas where attitudes are negative or where the need for such programs is not per- ceived, have made little progress in providing services for (the handicapped population in our society. Statement of the Problem The present study will attempt to assess the attitudes toward the handicapped held by various interest1 (occupational) groups in the area of Wichita, Kansas. Specifically, a set of- instruments (which will beadescribed in Chapter III) will be employed in order to elicit attitudes toward general disability, toward blindness, and toward education, and will enable compari- son of these attitudes from one occupational group to another. Further, an attempt will be made to relate these attitudes to other variables which from a theoretical standpoint should serve as correlates or predictors. Kerlinger's theoretical model served as a basis for the study of attitudes toward education. He postulates a basic dichotomy which consists of a restrictive-traditional or Efiynmissive-progressive dimension of educational attitudes. See section on Definition of Terms, page 9 he furthe is depend experiehc ance of e research ; progressi' tion gene; disabilit; Soc that value tudes tows Orientatic toward th e it t° a se HWEVep' W Qualities are being than, ut V111 be To capped the Name s Mitrefm‘e’ amtllcie r difibility Psy‘ and ham” A He further suggests that the sharpness of this dichotomy is dependent upon occupational role, knowledge of and experience with education as well as the perceived import- ance of education (Kerlinger, 1956, p.312). The present research is also baSed on the assumption that Kerlinger's progressive-traditional dhmension of attitudes toward educa- tion generalizes to attitudes in other areas such physical disability. Social-psychological theory (Wright, 1960) has indicated that values are important and pervasive determinants of atti- tudes toward disability. Wright suggests there are two value orientations which exert differing effects upon attitudes toward the physically handicapped: comparative yglug§.and g§§g§_y§;22§, When a person evaluates an object by comparing it to a set standard, comparative values are in Operation. However, when a person evaluates an object on the basis of the qualities which are inherent in that object, then asset values are being employed. It is felt that people who characteris- tically utilize asset values in their evaluation of others will be more favorable in their attitudes toward the handi- capped than those whose evaluation of others is based on com- parative standards. Another aim of the present research, therefore, is to determine whether this particular value- attitude relationship will be found with reference to physical disability. 1 Psychological theory likewise indicates that the amount and nature of interpersonal contact with a particular social object, : are impoz another 1 kinds of responden contact d scores. Th the needs conducted of Dr, JG} throughom aWe, A: wide range indiceg tc Var 1953; Cuts great ,5an physical d I‘EVeals thi Other NW: “0331 pro“ cal handica and the GSt object, such as the subgroup constituted by the handicapped, are important factors in the determination of attitudes. Still another research aim, then, will be to assess the amount and kinds of experiences (i.e., the interpersonal contacts) that respondents have had with the physically handicapped. The contact data will then be related with the obtained attitude scores. The present study and resultant data will also meet the needs of a more comprehensive project currently being conducted at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan. Comparative data, useful for a survey throughout Latin America, (as well as selected countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia), will be secured dealing with a wide range of descriptive, statistical, and attitundinal indices toward education and toward the physically disabled. . Various authors (Chevigny and Braverman, 1950; Cholden, 1958; Cutsforth, 1951; Himes,l9Sl) have suggested that the great majority of people regard blindness as the most severe physical disability that a person can incur. Investigation reveals that the blind enjoy a more favorable position than other physically handicapped persons with regard to the availability of services. In terms of the status of educa- tional provisions, the amount (in comparison to other physi- cal handicaps) of favorable federal and state legislation, and the establishment of separate state agencies providing services, authors 31 be to test derived fr physically classifica The 01' persona techniques aWig this may indicm I‘asealr‘ch a: further SUE The this Study. to the Stud m ing the def a "delimite P «0:- example Said ‘0 be )8 i180 ch cepta 1 with My, n services, it would appear that the assessment made by the authors stated above is valid. A fifth problem, then, will be to test significant differences between attitude scores derived from a scale utilizing the generic classification of physically handicapped and a scale utilizing the specific classification of blindness. The present study will also yield a considerable amount of personal and demographic data. Modern computer analyses techniques enable the investigation of interrelationShips among this type of diverse data. The analysis of such data may indicate suggestive relationships leading to subsequent research efforts. It is also possible that the analysis may further suggest research predictions. Definition of m The following terms are used frequently throughout this study» Many have either a specific meaning in relation to the study or are in need of Operational definition. Attitude.--This general term will be utilized followb ing the definition of Guttman (1950, p 51). An attitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something. For example, the attitude of a person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of the acts that a person has per- formed with respect to Negroes." The use of this definition is also consistent with the attempt to use some of Guttman's concepts in respect to scale and intensity analysis. Attitude Component.--Components of attitudes have been discussed by various investigators (e.g. Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9; Katz, 1960, p. 168; Rosenberg, 1960, pp. 320, ff). The two components generally considered are those of belief and intensity, although Guttman defines additional components according to certain mathematical preperties. The first canponent in this study will be that of item content (or belief), the second that of item intensity (cf. Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9; Suchman, 1950, Ch. 7). Attitude Content.--The attitude content component refers to the actual item statements within an attitude scale. Attitude Intensity.--The attitude intensity component refers to the affective statements that a respondent makes regarding each content item. Operationally, it consists of a separate statement.for each attitude item on which the respondent may indicate how strongly or how certain he feels about his answer to the content statement. Attitude §g§1§.--As used in this study, a scale is a Set of items which fall into a particular relationship in respect to each other and in respect to the ordering of re- spondents. 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 reason- able limits Of error (e.g., Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3; Stouffer, .1950, on. 1). A ' tage c“in 8 Demographic Variables.--Specifica11y, this refers in the present study to certain statitical data frequently used in sociological studies. These variables are: age, sex, education, income, rental, occupation, number of siblings, occupational and residential mobility, rural or urban residence in youth, and religiousity. Data on these demographic variables were secured through responses of respondents to questionnaire items. Educational Progressivism.--A ten-item scale of progressive attitudes toward education developed by Kerlinger (1958). Educational Traditionalism.--A ten-item scale of traditional attitudes toward education deve10ped by Ker- linger (1958). This educational measure and the one above do not constitute scales as defined for the present study, but rather are made up of two independent clusters of items which appeared in Kerlinger's factor analytic stud- ies, and which Kerlinger characterized by the terms pgggressivism and traditionalism. Handicap.--This term signifies the social disadvan- tage placed upon a physically handicapped or impaired per- son because of the impairment. A handicap is a consequence of culturally held values and.attitudes which serve to define the physically impaired person socially. 9 Impairment.--This term refers to a defect in tissue or in the body structure. As such, it has no particular social connotations. Physical Disabilit .--This is a functional term denoting some loss of the tool function of the body. An approximate synonym is "physically incapacitated? In the present study the term "handicapped” was utilized since this appeared to be more meaningful to the general public than the term physical disability. Rehabilitation.--A term signifying "restoration of the disabled to the fullest physical, mental, social, and occupational usefulness possible" (Jordan, l96ha). Institutional Satisfaction.--This term is used to describe a set of variables on which the respondents were asked to indicate how well they felt that various kinds of local institutions were performing their stipulated functions in the community. These institutions were schools, business; labor, government, health services, and churches. Interest Qgggp.--Any group that, on the basis of one or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon other groups in the society to engage in particular forms of behavior. Associational interest groups work as collectives to exert influence and are characteristic of modern highly developed societies (e.g. Almond and Coleman, 1960). . Occupational Personalism.-This term is Operationally defined.by two questionnaire items designed to ascertain: 10 first, about what percent of the time peOple work with others with whom they feel personally involved; second, how important it is to work with peOple with whom one is personally involved. A personalistic orientation to life is sometimes considered as a distinguishing character- istic of traditional social patterns (e.g. Loomis, 1960). Relational Diffussion.--This term is Operationally defined by'a questionnaire item designed to determine the extent tO‘which personal relations on the job diffuse into a person's non-job social milieu. A personalistic diffu- sion between the social milieu and the occupational milieu is sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic of traditional social patterns (e.g. Loomis, 1960). Religiosity.--A term used to denote a person's orienta- tion to religion. Operationally, it is defined by three items. in the questionnaire: first, the matter of religious adherence; second, the perceived importance of religion to the person; and thirdly, the extent to which the person follows the rules and.regulations of his religion. 0 Special Education.--This term follows the definition by Kirk (1962, p. 29) and characterizes educational practices "that are'unique, uncommon, of unusual quality, and in par- ticular are in addition to the organizational and instruc- tional procedures used with the majority of children." Jordan (1964a, p. I) has cemented: "the basic aim of special education is to prevent a disability from becoming a handicap." ll Eglgg.--According to'Kluckholn (in Parsons and Shils, 1951, p. All), "a value orientation may be defined as a generalized and organized conception, influencing behavior, of nature, of’man's place in it, of man's relation to man, and of the desirable and nondesirable as they may relate to man-environment and interhuman relations." In relation to this general definition, the present study has focussed upon the value sub-set of "man's relation to man," or, interpersonal values. Two interpersonal value categories were adapted: (a) Asset values predispose an individual to evaluate others according to their own unique potentials and characteristics, (b) Comparative values predispose an individual to evaluate others according to external criteria of success and.achieve- ment (wright, 1960, pp. 128-133). Operationally, these values were defined by three scales on the Survey of Inter- personal Values (Gordon, 1960). Asset values are measured by the Benevolence Scale, and comparative values by the Rec- ognition and Leadership Scales. These scales were judged by the investigator to have reasonable face validity for the measurement of the values proposed.by'wright.t Additional variables measured by the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values, but which were not used for hypothesis testing, were those of Support, Conformity and Independence. For a more detailed discussion of the value selection rationale, see Chapter III, Interpersonal Values (pp. 60-61). 12 . Change 0rientation.--In the present study, this variable refers to the willingness of individuals to accept or even encourage change in the following areas: health practices, child rearing practices, birth control, automa- tion, political leadership, and self change. These variables were Operationally defined by a series of questions in the personal questionnaire. It was postulated that people work- ing in SER would have responses which suggested a greater flexibility and openess to change. This favorableness toward change challenges many existing cultural norms. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized according to the following plan: Chapter I serves as an introduction to the nature of the problem involved in the study. Chapter II is a review and summarization of theory and research related to this study. The major divisions include: 1. A theoretical framework for attitudes toward education. 2. ,Attitudes toward disability a. Peer group attitudes and acceptance-rejection b. Parental attitudes c. Teacher attitudes d. General disability attitude studies 3. Theoretical framework of attitudes toward disability. A. The relationship of values, personal contact, and attitudes - some research findings. 5. The measurement of attitudes. 6. Michigan State University cross-cultural attitudinal studies. Che; methodology and the sta data are in Chap and descrl; Chap conclusions 13 Chapter III is concerned with the procedures and methodology of the study. The instrumentation of the study and the statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data are included in this chapter. Chapter IV presents the research results in tabular and descriptive form. Chapter V presents a summary of the results with conclusions and recommendations. V0 exploring social clh theoretic; underlyin, hi. ‘0 innove A Ve: and esp: orar; the d On t: PPOC( a pa: when in e< Strd‘ 0r fe on a dick | at CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THEORI AND RELATED RESEARCH Volumes of current literature have been devoted to exploring the relationship of education to innovation and social change. However, there has been surprisingly little theoretical discussion about the basic dimensions or factors underlying attitudes toward education. .Miles makes the following observation with respect to innovation in education: A very wide variety of strategies for creating and controlling educational change is being employed....The dominant focus in most contemp- orary change efforts, however, tends to be on the content of the desired change, rather than on the features and consequences of change processes....We need to know, for example, why a particular innovation spreads rapidly or slowly, what the causes of resistances to change are in educational systems, and why particular strategies of change chosen by innovators succeed or fail (Miles, 19 A, p. 2). A Theoretical Framework for fittitudes—Towgrd Education Kerlinger has developed a theoretical model built on a dichotomy which postulates progressive and traditional dimensions of attitudes toward education. His approach is most relevant to the needs of this study and will be used as _a theoretical framework for the present research. Kerlir conceptualize lying factors just the OppC of progressiv . to have an ex of conceiving i Progressivisx. ‘ of a stand wh i ‘0 Educationa ‘0 be a stand tional Progre. traditional; 8 i lip-orient to : ‘. in its om ti, 2 Kerlinl as one "hi Ch hierarchical 1 i: 5“‘93 is cons t kernel diScip. In COR. 8 persPect (a. detest and l5 Kerlinger states that educational attitudes can be conceptualized as hinging on two relatively independent under- lying factors Or ideologies. Traditionalism apparently is not just the Opposite of progressivism in education. The Opposite of progressivism is anti-progressivism. Traditionalism seems to have an existence of its own. Rather than the usual way of conceiving Of traditionalism as simply the negation of progressivism, it might better be conceived as the affirmation of a stand which emphasizes a conservative-traditional approach to educational issues and problems. Progressivism also seems to be a stand in its own right. When we say a man is an "educa- tional progressivist" we do not simply mean that he is an anti- traditionalist. While this is undoubtedly true, it is more important to suggest that progressivism is an independent stand in its own right (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 330). Kerlinger defines the restrictive-traditional factor as one which emphasizes subject matter for its own sake. The hierarchical nature of impersonal superior-inferior relation- ships is considered important and there is an emphasis on ex- ternal discipline. Social beliefs are preserved through the maintenance of the status quo. In contrast, the permissive-progressive factor emphasizes problem solving and de-emphasizes subject matter per se. From this perspective, education is seen as growth and the child's interest andrneeds are seen as basic to education. Equality 16 and warmth in interpersonal relationships is valued. There is an orientation on internal rather than external discipline. Social beliefs tend to be liberal and emphasize education as an instrument of change (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 112). Kerlinger's theory can be summarized in the following four propositions: 1. 2. 3. A. (Individuals having the same or similar occupatiOnal or professional roles will hold similar attitudes toward a cognitive Object which is significantly related to the occupational or professional rOle. Individuals having dissimilar roles will hold dis- similar attitudes. There exists a basic dichotomy in the educational values and attitudes of peOple, corresponding gen- erally to "restrictive" and "permissive", or "trad- itional"land'progressive" modes of looking at education. Individuals will differ in degree or strength of dichotomization, the degree or strength of dichoto- mization being a function of occupational role, extent Of knowledge of the cognitive object (educa- tion), the importance of the cognitive Object to the subjects, and their experience with it. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of educa- tion, but individuals will tend to attach differen- tial weights to different areas, specifically to the 17 areas of (a) teaching-subjact-matter-curriculum, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) normative, and (d) authority- discipline (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 200). Kerlinger has noted that the value structure of individp uals is not well understOOd. He insists that the problem of the consistency and inconsistency of an individual's attitude is still largely unsolved (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296). As a result of the implications of these Observations, Kerlinger designed.a study which examined the educational atti- tudes Of professors and laymen. The sample consisted of 25 subjects chosen on the basis of occupational roles as well as known attitudes toward education. He develOped the following categories for the study: ATTITUDES: (1) ‘Restrictive-traditional (dependence-heteronomy) (2) Permissive-progressive (independence-autonomy) AREAS (a) Teaching-SubjectéMatter-Curriculum b Interpersonal Relations _ c Normative-Social (conventionalism-nonconventionalism) m Authority-Discipline An example of 1(a) would be: The true view of education is so arranging learnbng that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. An illustration of 2(a) would be exemplified in the following statement: Knowledge and subject matter themselves are not so important as learning to solve problems. An illustration of. l Md mi) schools 1 A of the ct springs 1 problems. Ke dimension ative ass ably inde Th tional ro ables inf Smilax: :- a Miler he follows: 5 ha attl and “its ih‘” n . and. 01‘ e, Sm. :‘a. "e hipou haSic dim: 18 l (m) might be: One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interest of the children.) An example of 2(m) might be: True discipline springs from interests, motivation, and involvement in live problems. Kerlinger warns that the restrictive and permissive dimensions are rarely Opposites nor'merely positive and neg- ative assertions of the same thing. Each category is presum- ably independent£Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296). ‘ The results of the Kerlinger study indicated that occupa- tional roles and role expectations are potent independent vari- ables influencing attitudes and vice versa. Individuals having shmilar roles might be expected to have similar attitudes and a similar attitude structure. Kerlinger summarizes the traditional-progressive issue as, follows: A basic dichotomy seems to exist in educational attitudes corresponding generally to restrictive and permissive, or traditional and progressive ways Of regarding education, and some individuals. show the dichotomy more sha ly than others depend- ing on their occupational ro es, their knowledge of an experiences with education, and the importance of education to them (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). Smith, a student of Kerlinger, designed a study in which she hypothesized that progressivism and traditionalism were basic dimensions of educational attitudes that would emerge and remain factorially invariant under different conditions of item sampling and subject sampling. She: toward educe uals holding be liberal i uals conserv tobe tradit In tw statements r P'Wzressive . ”mu invar‘ 50118 were 1; inch 0n the servausm dlc and were high m“ 01' the h 19 She also hypothesized a relationship between attitudes toward education and general social attitudes. Thus individ- uals holding progressive educational attitudes would tend to be liberal in their social attitudes and visa versa. Individ- uals conservative in their social attitudes would be expected to be traditional in their educational attitudes. In two,Q_§g§tg consisting of a total of 1L0 attitude statements relating to all aspects of education, she found that progressive and traditional factors of the,Q_§g§t did indeed remain invariant. Other factors which emerged from one of the sorts were labeled as Wmoral values" and "interpersonal rela- tions". On the third Q_§g£t, she found that liberalism and con-' servatism did.emerge as basic dimensions of social attitudes ' and were highly related to educational attitudes in the direc- tion of the hypothesis. Two other factors which emerged from the third Q_§g£t were labeled as "internationalism" and "Religious Tenets" (Smith, 1963). Block and Yuker (1965) developed a scale to measure intellectual attitudes: the IntellectualismpPragmatism (I-P) Scale. While they do not define intellectualism in this arti- cle, it is contextually inferred that it is an intellectual orientation resulting from academic exposure. They note that intellectualism was found to be associated with.a progressive attitude toward education as measured.by the Kerlinger Education Scale. Contrary to eXpectations, however, I-P scores were not related to Kerlingex's Traditionalism Scale. correlai Persons dents wh persons, Scale, w scale. ll educatio; related 1 K1 Education belief 5}. lie cousin” “W tha< the Sreat. tional at: hhi than the n th03e who I Tho: conflict“! strength 01 whether the I eson’ 20 The Intellectualism scores were also positively correlated with scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (developed by Yuker, et a1, 1960). The stu- ”Mun—o- —_._...—.- dents who changed most in their attitudes toward disabled persons, as'measured by the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons- Scale, were the ones who scored highedt on the intellectualism scale. They concluded that education (at least some types of education) brings about attitude changes in students that are related to a greater intellectual orientation. Kramer used Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale and Kerlinger's Education Q sorts in an effort to measure the interrelation of belief systems and educational values of school teachers. He found that "Open-minded" teachers as a group were more consistent and_held permissiveeprogressive attitudes. He also found that the more "Open-minded" a teacher's belief system was, the greater the likelihood for internal consistency of an educa- tional attitude structure in a progressive direction. While the "close-minded" teachers were less consistent than the "openaminded" teachers, they were more consistent than those who had no clear cut belief system (Kramer, 1963). Thoreson concluded that when an individual is faced with _ conflicting norms held by multiple reference groups, it is the strength of his associations with a group that determines . whether that group's home will be internalized by him (Thoreson, 1963). . La Issues tc This scal conservat tion Seal tudes and scale did tional at Ta study the and Parti “as also ; attitlldes that teac] Pated les: in Other I line. 01‘ 1 had attitl tradition, 21 Lawrence (1963) used the Scale of Beliefs on Social Issues to measure liberal beliefs and consistency of beliefs. This scale appeared to differentiate between liberal and conservative beliefs. Lawrence also used Kerlinger's Educa- tion Scale 11 to measure both progressive educational atti- tudes and attitudinal consistency. She reported that this scale did not seem to differentiate progressive and tradi- tional attitudes toward education. Taylor (1963) used Kerlinger's Education Scale II to study the relationship between basic educational attitudes and participation in professional teacher activities. She was also interested in the relationship of basic educational attitudes to educational background of teachers. She found that teachers with border-line traditional attitudes partici- pated less in activities related to pupils than did teachers in other categories such as traditional, progressive border- line, or progressive. She also found that 29% of the teachers had attitude scores that almost certainly indicated either traditionalism or progressivism. I Anderson (196h) studied the changes in attitudes of prospective teachers toward education and teaching in secon- dary schools. She found that student teachers, for the most did not change their attitudes toward education and teaching. She concluded that the extent and direction of change seems to depend on the degree to which the students perceive existing school and community objectives, policies and relationships. 22 Several factors resonsible for producing attitude change are identified. These included peOple with whom student teachers came in contact, effectiveness of the school program, and attitudes formulated before student teaching experiences (Anderson, 1964). Hand (1964) studied teacher characteristics associated with changed attitudes and perfOrmance in the teaching of read- ing. She found that a tendency toward more progressive beliefs was a factor associated with change in teacher's attitudes. Purcell (1964) found teaching methods, as well as content, important in trying to change attitudes of perspec- tive teachers. 2 . Classon, in her study of elementary school teachers attitudes toward children and teaching as well as toward supervision, concluded that the success of the program super- visor who attempts to introduce or improve a program will depend, in a large measure, upon the degree of acceptance and cOOperation from the staff. The supervisor should care- fully study and evaluate teacher's attitudes toward super- vision before attempting to imprOve and develop any program (Classon, 1963). Attitudes Toward Disabled Studies Of attitudes toward the physically handicapped have been undertaken in various settings with differing groups the:object of research. It is possible, however, to classify 23 these studies into four general categories: (a) Peer group attitudes and acceptance-rejection, (b) Parental attitudes, (c) Teacher attitudes, and (d) General attitude studies. Although the present smudy does not deal with mental retard- ation specifically, studies of attitudes toward the mentally handicapped have been included in this review because of their theoretical relevance to the general area of attitudes toward the handicapped. Peer Group Studies In the area of peer group acceptance, several researchers (Baldwin, 1958; Blatt, 1958; Harris, 1957; Johnson, 1950; Jordan, 1959;1Miller, 1956; Thurstone, 1959, 1960) have demon- . strated the critical importance of attitudes in the acceptance of the mentally retarded and the physically handicapped by their normal peers in regular public school classes. All of the above research studies uniformly indicate that handi- capped children attending regular grades are characteristically rejected by their normal peers and that they tend to become social isolates. Two further studies (Lapp, 1954; Mullen and Itkin, 1961) are of interest because of their lack of agreement with the majority of research in this area. These authors found no significant differences in academic achievement, in adjust- ment ratings, or in socianetric ratings between mentally retarded children in special classes and those in regular grades. 2h Force (1956) has shown how the attitudes of peers effects the adjustment of physically handicapped children in regular classes through the use of peer group sociometric friendship choices. It was found that physical disabilities have varying social values with cerebral palsy ranking low- est on the value scale (visual disability ranked next lowest). Force hypothesized an acceptance-rejection continuum or hier- archy based on "visability"; i.e., obviousness of the impair- ment. Centers and Centers (1963) administered a social dis- crimination questionnaire to classmates of children with am- putations and to classmates of non-amputee children. They hypothesized that the presence of amputation represents a threat to bodily integrity which will be reflected in atti- tudes of greater rejection of amputee than of non-amputee children. They found significantly greater numbers of reject- ing attitudes expressed toward the amputee by his classmates than were eXpressed toward non-amputee children, thus confirm- ing their prediction. Four studies ( Elser, 1959; Justman, 1956; Justman and IMoskowitz, 1957; O'Connor and.O'Connor, 1961) investigated the status of hearing handicapped children in regular classes. Elser found-that the deaf were not accepted as the equals of their'classmates. O'Connor and O'Connor state that one of ‘ the most important factors in thesuccessful integration of 25 deaf children into regular classes is the attitudes of the total school environment - classmates, teachers, and admin- istrators. Justman and his associates studied.the acceptance of deaf children in regular classes over a two-year period. They found that deaf children were not truly accepted by the hearing students although the authors feel that the prolonged contact had to some extent improved the social status of the deaf students during the second year. Bateman (1962) examined sighted children's perceptions of various abilities of blind children and some factors which influence these perceptions. A number of interesting rela- tionships were found: (a) the amount of contact was associa- ted with more positive attitudes toward the blind - those “who had had contact with blind were more positive and the positiveness of appraisal increased with the number of blind children known, i.e. contact. (b) the appraisal of ‘urban children was more positive than that of rural children; (c) positiveness of appraisal was associated with the level of educational attainment of sighted children. The author suggests several implications from her study: "Support uwas found for the contention that personal knowledge about ‘blindness (acquaintance with a recognizably select group of blind children - those attending public schools) does broad- en sighted children's ideas of the capabilities of the blind......The fact (that the children who had had no exper- ience with the blind expressed greater certainty and unanimity 26 in their evaluations indicates that increased knowledge may decrease the tendency to make absolute judgements and gener- alizations.....Interesting speculations are suggested by the finding that rural children were more negative or devaluating in their appraisals than were urban children. Are rural chil- dren more prone to accept negative stereotypes than urban children, or is this simply a reflection of possibly broader general experiences normally obtained in an urban setting?“ She suggests that further research could be profitable in): the areas of attitude formation and Change related to stereotyped attitudes concerning the handicapped. Horowitz and Bees (1962) investigated the area of attitudes toward the aurally handicapped. Their purpose was to assess amount of knowledge concerning deafness and attitudes toward the deaf. Three different age groups rang- ing from elementary age children to college students were 'selected for the study. They concluded there was little knowledge, much ignorance, and considerable confusion con- cerning deafness and deaf peOple. They found that knowledge was not necessarily a determining factor in the develognent of expressed attitudes, either positive or negative, toward the deaf. 27 2 Parental Attitudes Smart (1953) has emphasized that: Many problems of the child are a reflection of the parental attitudes and prdblems since his maturity and emotional reaction are largely a result of the degree of love, affection and security he receives from them (Smart, 1953, p. 160). ~ Meyer (1953) has noted that these "....parental attitudes that surround the child mold more than in normal cases the personality," (p. 155) of the physically handicapped child. This is partly due to the prolonged dependence of the handicapped child on parents, the many contacts with doctors, therapists and other author- itarian figures. Gillette (1955) has stressed that in the treatment of cerebral palsy, "the diagnosis of the child's condition begins with the appraisal of the parent's attitude" (p. 31). a . Farber (1960) attempted to describe the various conditions influencing the effects of a severely retarded child on family integration. He found that families with a retarded boy at home had less marital integration than families with a girl in the home. He further found that, generally, the normal sister but not the normal brouher was helped by the decision to institutionalize the retarded child. Other factors which were influential in determining parental reactions were socio-economic status and religious affiliation: higher socio-economic families were best able . to maintain marital integration and Catholic families Were able to assimilate the retarded child most readily. 28 Farber (1960a) also has studied the ways in which families deal with the crisis of having a severely retarded child. He found that parents who consistently utilized ~either parent-oriented, child-oriented, or home-oriented strategies had higher marital integration than parents who did not employ a consistent orientation. Results in- dicated that the type of family orientation rather than institutionalization of a child is most important for maintenance of family integration. Yuk, et a1 (1961) found a low but positive correla- tion between measures of maternal acceptance of handicapped children and religious background. Catholic mothers rated themselves more intense in religious practices than non- Catholic mothers and also verbalized attitudes judged more acceptant. Religious background correlated positively with maternal attitudes when judgement of acceptance was based on attitudes from items involving dispositions toward discipline and overdependence. Harris (1959) utilized three methods of parent educa- tion in an attempt to develop positive parental attitudes: (a) incidental counseling by staff; (b) small group discus- sions; and (c) formal programs dealing'with aspects of retardation. No significant differences were noted on pretest - post test analyses. However, field work impres- sions suggested that parents do gain from the Opportunities to secure adequate knowledge concerning their handicapped 7 children. 29 A study similar to Harris' was conducted by Bitter (1963). He utilized parent group discussions as a vehicle for producing attitude change among parents with a trainable retarded child. The results suggest that discussion sessions were successful in changing parent attitudes toward their retarded child and alleviated family prdblems created by the presence of the child. Bitter feels that this change was in a positive direction. Cook (1963) studied the attitudes of mothers of chil- ,dren with one of the following handicaps: blindness, deafness, mongolism, cerebral palsy, and organicity. Mother's atti- tudes according to type of disability were: blind é overpro- tective; deaf - overindulgent; mongoloid - punitive; cerebral palsy - punitive; organic - overindulgent. .Mother's attitudes in terms of severity of handicap, disregarding the diagnostic- grouping were: mildly handicapped - rejecting; and, severely handicapped - overprotective. A Sommers (l9uh) studied the influence of parental atti- tudes on the personality development of the adolescent blinded She states: "Interviews with parents disclosed that the major- ity of mothers studied experienced frustration or feelings of conflict because of having given birth to‘a blind child." Reactions of the parents to their blind children fell into five categories: (a) genuine acceptance, (b) an attitude of denial that either parent or child is affected by the handi- cap, (c) overprotectiveness and excessive pity, (d) disguised rejection, and (e) overt rejection. 30 Verillo (1958) investigated the relationship between the attitudes of parents and the adjustment of groups of visually handicapped and sighted adolescents. She found that adolescent adjustment in both groups was significantly related to children's perceptions of attitudes of rejection and acceptance from parent figures. Children's perceived attitudes and actual parental attitudes were significantly related. High socio-economic status was positively related to the degree of adjustment of children and to maternal accep- tance of children in both groups. Low socio-economic status was related to attitudes of overprotection, dominance, rejec- . tion, anti-minority, and authoritarianism in both groups. In the visually handicapped group, attitudes toward blindness' became significantly more negative as ages of children in- creased, a finding in contradiction to the theoretical ori- entation of the present study. Underberg (1958) and Underberg, et a1 (1961) studied ' the relationship between parental understanding and child adjustment in the visually handicapped adolescent. He found that less understanding may exist between partially seeing children and their parents than is usual in similar relationships involving normally seeing and blind.children. The author hypothesized that this results from the discrepancy which occurs between the expected and observed behavior of these children. Since from outward appearances many partially Sighted children seem normal, parents and others have normal expectancies for the child's behavior and growth. When the degree c results ceived t stubborn visual 1 severe t2 the Opin. Opinions attendin‘: 0f paren: or (b) o} 31 degree of visual limitation prevents normal growth or results in aberrant behavior, this deviant behavior is per- ceived to result from lack of intelligence, clumsiness, or stubborness on the part of the child, rather than from the visual limitation per se. Wolfe and Reid (1958) studied the attitudes of par- ents of cerbral palsied children. .They found that the more severe the case of cerebral palsy, the more critical were the opinions of parents. In addition, they found that the Opinions of parents whose cerebral palsied children were 'attending school were less pessimistic than the Opinibns of parents whose children were: (a) too young for school, or (b) old enough for school but had never attended. Meyer and Crothers (1953), Misback (1955),Block (1956), Smart (1953), and Usher (1946) have all emphasized the crucial need for research efforts into the attitudes of parents with cerebral palsied children. Bice (1954) investigated some of the factors related to the concept of self in the cerebral palsied. He found that the attitudes of parents were important determinants . of the handicapped child's self-concept. In his study, 74 percent of the parents tested revealed negative atti- tudes toward the handicapped. Levine (1956) in a study of common beliefs concom— ing cerebral palsy; states that: "the more severely involved a caerebral palsied child, the more pessimistic were his Pétrents regarding the intellectual abilities of cerebral palsied P. ‘O and hole heeves, . and C00; attitude: 32 palsied persons" (p. 127). Numerous other studies (Browne, et a1, 1960; Denhoff and Holden, 1954; Fliegler and Hebeler, 1960; Gurney, 1958; Reeves, 1962; Shere, 1956; Worchel.and.Worchel, 1961; Wortis and CoOper, 1957) have demonstrated the importance of parental attitudes in the adjustment process of the handicapped child. Teacher Attitudes Haring, et a1 (1958) investigated the attitudes of educators toward exceptional children. The authors also attempted to modify teacher attitudes toward disabled children through the use of workshOps. They found work- shops most successful in those cases where teachers had regular contact with these children. This finding suggests a possible interaction between information and contact in relation to attitudes toward a subordinate group, if such information necessitates a change in beliefs. "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 workshOp, seems only to increase the anxiety and to provide a specific focus for the expression of and the development of organized resistance (p. 131). The autho were 0035 were cons school pr ment undo: personal 1 children \ inclusion 33 The authors also found that children with cerebral palsy were considered the most handicapped group. Teachers were considering acceptability of children for regular school programs so that factors concerning class manage- ment undoubtedly were influential as well as the specific personal reactions to handicapped children. The only children who were considered acceptable by teachers for inclusion in regular classes were those with mild hearing losses and those crippled children who were ambulatory through the use of a wheelchair or crutches. Semmel (1959) contrasted attitudes toward and knowledge about mental retardation among special class and regular grade teachers. He found equally high positive attitudes toward mental retardation fer both groups. The special class teachers, however, demonstrated significantly greater knowledge with respect to retardation. The amomnt of knowledge and the attitude scores showed positive corre- lations among special class teachers and no correlation among regular teachers. O'Connor and O'Connor (1961) in their study of the integration of deaf children in regular classes, stress the importance of teacher attitudes in the success or .failure of the deaf child's adjustment. They indicate 'bhat negative attitudes on the part of regular school IDersonnel is one of the factors which makes integration <2f the deaf a risky educational decision. u CCh‘ of t‘E“ 02 us" we, “r a" erre 0 are 5 re . O Q ours C P y! a. t .rv ‘I‘ d t i. h‘ AD HQ .c I: v“ “Q t 0 e u t u trio .PU ‘ 34 Studies by Kvaraceus (1956), Dickstein and Dripps (1958), and Murphy (1960) were directed to obtaining preference rankings of teachers for teaching particular groups of children. In general, the gifted were the most preferred group while the mentally retarded and the mal- adjusted were least preferred. Physically handicapped children were in between in order of preference. Dickstein and Dripps, and Murphy found that those peOple with an edu- cational specialty (e.g., such as speech pathology) most preferred children with a related disorder (e.g., speech problem). Generally, teachers preferred to work with those children with whom they were most familar. The finding that familiarity or contact with handicapped chil- dren is usually associated with higher prefernce rankings or more positive attitudes is of interest to the present research. The problem in interpreting this type of research is that the effects of information and contact have not been controlled, and therefore, the differential contribu- tion of either is unknown. The present study will specif- ically control these factors. General Attitude Studies Two studies (Lukoff and Whiteman, 1961; Whiteman and Lukoff, 1962) were directed at assessing attitudes toward the blind. Their researches were of especial in- terest because they not only studied attitudes per se, lbut, in addition, concerned themselves with attitude structu. correla1 another 0-ffflnnrser1nhr *‘J‘O‘px‘fa 35 structure and personal value orientations of their re- spondents. They indicated that,gggt§gt appears to be re- lated to more positive attitudes and'the degree of espousal for community integration of the blind. With regard to structure, the authors found that for a specific component, correlations are higher between disability groups than with another component for the same disability group. They state: The relationShip between components, even though within a given disability group is poor. Thus the correlation between items dealing with the evalua- tion of a physical handicap and the evaluation of physically handicapped peOple is .13, while the two items referring to blindness and blind people correlate .22. However, the relationship within components is appreciably better even though the responses are to different disabilities. Thus the two items referring to blindness and physical han- dicap and their effect on worthwhile eXperiences correlate .53. while the two items referring to the sorrowful characteristics of the blind and physically handicapped correlate .61. Similar considerations obtain when the components deal with pity towards blind people, or with readiness for interaction with than (pp. 154-155). Whiteman and Lukoff also considered the value orien- tations of respondents.1 ".....those who describe than- selves as distant from others, or those who identify strong- ly with power may also express these orientations in nega- tive evaluations of blindness'I (1962, p. 156). Clunk (1948) reviewed the area of employer attitudes toward the blind. He concluded that many employers hold negative attitudes and that these attitudes are based on k lOther respondente variables considered by Whiteman 43nd Lukoff but not related to the present study, concern ;prodective characteristics, intelligence, and the level of anxiety (pp. 155-156)- ignore Hepo worse: 4 a, (n L: N r. u. h-‘fi—a - H’r'i H \hrn m 36 ignorance of the true employment potential of the blind. He pointed to the extreme difficulty in placing blind workers on the job. One placement agent reported that it required nine years to secure approval of employment for one blind person in one of the smaller plants in a nationally known brass manufacturing chain. To place one person in a large electrical appliance plant, it was necessary to secure approval of the president and all executives between him and the idustrial relations director. Then a five-hour meeting was held under the chairman- ship of the industrial relations director and included all department superintendents, safety department, and union officials. The placement agent had to spend a week in the plant performing approximately 50 different processes, and then four months of repeated calls were required before the first blind' person went to work; and this was in wartime (Clunk, 1948, p. 58). Cantoni (1963) and Cohen (1963) both reported on the willingness of employers to hire the physically and mentally handicapped. They Suggested a number of ways of assessing employer attitudes. Their findings enunci- ate the extreme difficulties that the handicapped face in effecting an economic adjustment. Cowman (1957) studied the attitudes of different socio-Ws toward blindness and other physical disabilities. He feund.that blindness was overwhelmingly selected as the worst possible disability. The other physical handicaps in order of perceived seriousness were leg'amputations, deafness, arm amputation, and severe facial burns. Cowman also found a positive relationship between the socio-economic level of the respondents and their verbalized attitudes toward the physically handi- capped with high socio-economic level being associated with more pc capped. Raski attitudes of gested that mitiple det tion of psyc historical d Cower. an instmmez blindness. Sit? Student with the bl: attitudes u tion, that, : those sub .) e c This finding tiOn of the dicate that, Variables t} (reSmt Stm hi 8 associa‘ 0lind perm I it) c I ol‘oup m blindnesS WJI inherit,” 37 with more positive attitudes toward the physically handi- capped. _ Raskin (1956) in a penetrating analysis of the attitudes of sighted people toward blindness, has sug- gested that such attitudes are most likely shaped by multiple determinants. He indicated the probable opera- tion ofpsycho-dynamic, situational, socio-cultural, and historical determinants. Cowen, et a1 (1958) undertook the develOpment of an instrument to measureverbalized attitudes toward blindness. Utilizing their scale with a group of univer- sity students, they found that contact or lack of contact with the b1ind.does not relate significantly to verbalized attitudes toward blindness. Their data suggests, in addi- tion, that attitudes were slightly more negative among those subjects who had had previous contact with the blind. This finding is contradictory to the theoretical orienta-‘ .tion of the present study. The authors, do, however, in- dicate that the extent and type of contact are important variables that were not controlled in their study. The present study will control these variables. Cowen and his associates further tested the hypothesis that the blind person is viewed in certain ways common with minor- ity group members, and that negative attitudes toward 'blindness will be found to occur together with pro- «authoritarian attitudes. They obtained significant re- lationshi and anti- attitudes In says that minority . indicate ‘ persons a; also says unverbal i; (1,1 u: public cg; not aware hold neg“ ically to lingness t ability to tudes deve the deaf. 3m. flkrtOt} toward th e of attitude sex, f’ngue “tion _ ei attitudes w 38 lationships between negative attitudes toward blindness, and.anti-Negro, antiéminority, and pro-authoritarian attitudes. In agreement with the Cowen study, Berreman (1954) says that the handicapped constitute a group not unlike a minority group such as-Negroes or Jewsq Berreman's studies indicate that public "verbalized" attitudes toward disabled persons are on the average mildly favorable. However, he also says that independent evidence suggests that deeper unverbalized attitudes are more hostile. Burns (1958) referred to the ignorance of the general public concerning the deaf. He states that most people are not aware of individual capabilities of deaf persons and hold negative attitudes toward them. Burns refers specif- ically to potential employers of the deaf and their unwil- lingness to hire them for jobs for which they have the ability to perform effectively. He states that these atti- tudes develOp because of the lack of knowledge concerning the deaf. Bruce (1960), Stelle (1958), and Strong (1931) all refer to the negative attitudes held by the general public toward the deaf. Lubberts (1965) studied the relationship of attitudes toward the deaf and the following variables: sex, frequency of contact, socio-economic status, age, occu-- pation - either service with the deaf or not. He found that attitudes were significantly more favorable than neutral. 39 He also found a positive relationship between the amount of contact and favorableattitudes toward the deaf. Since the Kansas School for the Deaf is located in Olathe, where the study was conducted, Lubberts felt that the contact local residents had with the deaf was related to favorableness of attitudes. 'Nash (1962) explored the attitudes of non-handicapped toward the orthopedically handicapped. She found a relation- ship between a number of background factors of her subjects and the degree of acceptance of handicaps in others. The subjects who were most tolerant, were younger, currently married, and had.attained a higher educational level. Bell _(1*9__62_)‘studied the attitudes of professialal rehabilitation workers and hospital personnel toward the physically handicapped.; Utilizing Yuker's Attitude Toward Disabled gm goals, he found that those workers and personnel with disabled relatives were significantly more accepting of the physically handicapped than those with- out close personal contact. 1 Theoretical Framework For Research In Special Education . And Rahabilitation. One of the more serious criticisms which can legit- imately be directed to the majority of research efforts in the fields of special education and rehabilitation is the consistent concern with applied, descriptive studies which utilize instruments and.techniques developed specifi- 40 ' ”’f cally for’a given study. As a consequence, results fre- quently lack generality and theoretical relevance. Numerous researchers in special education and rehabilitation have criticized the purely practical nature of most special educa- tion research and have called for studies generated by broad- er theoretical bases (Kvaraceus, 1958; Levine, 1961; Myerson, 322M). ' ‘ ' _gordan (1961) undertook the development of a com- prehensive taxonomy of special education. He presented two miniature and overlapping taxonomic structures and suggested that a comprehensive data language would lend to a sophisticated pedagogy, assist in the develOpment of a curriculum with construct validity, and provide a basis for a theoretical foundation for special education. Hollinshead (1959), Trippe (1959), and Reynolds (1960) This series of three. articles discussed the social psychology of exceptional children. O'Connor and O'Connor (1959) criticized research in special education. 'They state that most research is char- acterized by: ......isolation without relationship to theories and findings of other studies. There is tendency to neglect theoretical research and to concentrate on immediate practical problems. Too often the findings are'inconclusive, not warranting wide applications; seldom are they repeated and related to each other (p. 487). 41 Theoretical Base of the Study The major theoretical orientation of the present study is consistent with the social-psychological approach to the investigation of physical disability. This approach ' ,is comnonly referred to as somato-psychology and it draws heavily on the field theory paradigm of inter-personal relationships as developed by Lewin (1936). The principle developers of’this theoretical position with regard to the physically handicapped havebeen Barker, et a1 (1953); Dembo, 'et a1 (1956); Meyerson (1955, 1963); and Wright (1960). Barker, et a1 (1953) have conceptualized the position of the physically handicapped in our society as being char- acterized by three significant psychodynamic features: (a) it is underprivileged, (b) it is marginal, (c) it in- volves more frequent exposure to new psychological situa- tions. In many respects, the position of the physically handicapped resembles that of racial and.religious minor- ities, in that definite restrictions exist in the acces- sibletlife space areas and actual inaccessibility of certain valued areas of social mobility. Barker (1948) states: Physically disabled persons cannot participate in many activities which physically normal people value highly. Thus, the employment Opportunities Open to disabled persons are sharply limited, and where Opportunities do exist, the higher levels are severely restricted. Likewise, the social and recreational activities in which disabled persons are able to engage are limited. In these 42 respects, the physically disabled person is in a position not unlike that of the Negro or the Jew and other underprivileged minorities; he is a member of an underprivileged.minority (p. 31). The central constructs of the social psychological approach to somatO-psychology are those of 391;, 231135, reference gggup, 321$, attitude, and yglgg. These con- structs are congruent with the more general social psych- ological orientation of symbolic interaction. Within this framework, physical disability can be viewed not as an ' objective entity in-and—of-itself, but rather, a social value judgement. Certain roles in:a society possess high value for maintenance of the social system, and peOple are generally esteemed.according to how they are perceived to fulfill these valued social roles. Attitudes toward physical disability, therefore, should vary according to the kinds of social roles perceived to be important to the 'individual, or collectively to the society. Studies by RichardsOn (1960) and Goodman (1963) lend support to this position. Although there are differences between-the theoret- ical orientation of Meyerson (1963) and the Meadian orien- tation of Shibutani (1961), both share the basic interac- tional prOpositions. The underlying assumptions, according to Shibutani (1961, p. 22-24) are as follOws: (a) behavior is motivated through the give and take of interpersonal adjustment - both the person and the society are products. of communication, (b) personality is continually reorganized BOXES consi physi that Value a rei Valut good felt #3 and constructed in the day-by-day interactions with others, (c) culture consists of models of prOper conduct hammered out and reinforced by comunications and by collective grappling with life conditions. The attitudinal implica- tions of interpersonal contact, value organization, social norms, and role behavior as perceived by people will be considered in the present study. The relationship of this frame of reference to physical disability was proposed by Levine. He suggested that disability is not a thing in itself but a social value judgement. These values related to society's perceptions of leadership, contributions toward improving society, being a good citizen, being a family head andother essential aSpects for maintaining a society. These values are criteria against which behavior is assessed in terms of deviation. All members of society whether handicapped or not are evaluated primarily by these values. Where an individual cannot meet these demands, or where there are questions as to the adequacy of the ' individual in relat on to these demands, there will be somggtevaluation of him on societies' part.(Levine, 1961, Po . . I [Expressed in more general terms, Levine has suggested a relationship between social role, role perception, role value, and attitude. "Being a family head" and "being a . good citizen" are two of many roles which are generally felt to be of value in maintaining society. - Role fulfillment may be perceived by others as fulfillment of an Obligation to society, and peOple are evaluated by the way they are perceived as meeting these #4 role obligations. Levine has further suggested that groups are stereo-typed according to their social con- tributions (Levine, 1961, p. 8b). Values ‘ According to Allport (1958), values are important sources of prejudice, or negative stereotypes. "The most important categories a.man has are his own personal set of values. He lives by and for his values...evidence and reason are ordinarily found to conform to them...the very act of affirming our way of life often leads us to the brink of prejudice" (p. 2h). "Man has a propensity to prejudice. This prepensity lies in his normal and nat- ural tendency to form generalizations, concepts, categories, whose content represents an oversimplification of his world of experience" (p. 26). "One type of categorization that predisposes us to make unwarranted prejudgements is our personal values“ (p. 27). ‘ I Katz refers to attitudes as having a "value- expressive function" (Katz, 1960, p. 173). They confirm and clarify to others and to the person himself those things most importantzind central to his image. Katz discusses the relationship of attitude to value in terms of attitude change. "Peeple are much less likely to find their values uncongenial than they are to find some of their attitudes inapprOpriate to their values.(p. 189). He would e) basic value tude, such abled persc change or 5 central vaI Ano1 because of attitudes 1 (Wright, 1< “nether the #5 He would expect a great deal of consistency between a basic value, such as equality, and a more specific atti- tude, such as favorableness toward Opportunities for dis- abled persons. Peeple are generally more inclined to change or give upiattitudes inconsistent or unrelated to central values. (Another conceptual value orientation of importance because of its specific relation to the consideration of attitudes toward the handicapped, was refered to previously (Wright, 1960). Values can be clustered according to whether they are derived from (a) comparisons or from (b) intrinsic assets (Dembo, Leviton, Wright, 1956; Wright, 1960). If the evaluation is based on comparisons with a standard, the person is said to be evoking com- parative values.......0n the other hand, if the evaluation arises from the qualities inherent in the object of judgement itself, the person is said to be evoking asset values. What matters is the ob- ject of'judgement in a setting that has its own in- trinsic purposes and demands. The person's reaction is then based upon how appropriately the situational demands are fulfilled rather than on comparisons with a predetermined standard (Wright, 1960, p. 129). Some situations require comparative evaluations, such as the requirements for a particular job. In other situations, however, persons with an asset value orientation may be able to make an evaluation of the disabled person on the basis of his own unique characteristics as a human 'being. There is some justification to argue that programs of-special education and rehabilitation develop as a result A6 of the asset values of a particular society. On the other hand, a society, in which educational Opportunity depends on some comparative standard, either with respect to hereditary standards (comparisons with the past) or to achievement standards (comparisons with present nonms), will likely deve10p only minimal programs providing ser- vices to disabled persons. An additional inference from the asset-comparative value framework, is that individuals engaged in special education and.rehabilitation would be: expected to hold higher asset values than individuals work~ ing in other occupations. Attitude Intensity Rosenberg has considered the intensity component of an attitude as an action predictor (1960, p. 336). Carlson (1956, p. 259) found initial intense attitudes much more resistant to change than moderately held attitudes. Gutt- man and Foa (1951) have shown that intensity is related to amount of social contact with the attitude object. Con- siderable research has suggested that intensity is an im- portant component of attitude structure in determining the "zero point" of a scale that discriminates the psychologi- cally "true" positive from negative attitude direction. This is not the same as the actual scale numbers. The printed zero point on a scale may or may not be the actual point of indifference (Foa, 1950; Edwards, 1957; Guttman,, 1947, 1950, l95h; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Such- man, 191.7; Suchman and Guttman, 191.7; and Suchman, 1950). #7 It is essential, therefore, that we be able to divide the respondents on the basis of the favorableness or unfavorableness of their responses. we must establish an objective "zero" point, independent of the content of the items, which will divide favorable and unfavorable responses. The method employed in the present study is to ascertain for each item how strongly the respondent .feels about the item. It has been shown (Foa, 1950, 1961; Guttman, 1947, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman,19h7; Suchman, 1950; Suchman and Guttman, l9h7) that intensity will usually form a quasiescale which, when plotted against the content dimension, will reveal the point on the content scale of'the lowest intensity of re- sponse. This point has been empirically established as a point of indifference in respect to the item content. Atti- tudes become favorable on one side of the point and unfavor-- able on the other side of the point. It then becomes possi- ble to state in respect to a particular group about what percent of the respondents are actually favorable, neutral, or unfav- orable, as defined by an objective and invariant referrent point. Personal Contact Homans (1950, p. 112) has suggested that frequency of contact between groups or persons and favorableness of atti- tudelare related.' He held the converse also to be true. 48 Allport (1958, pp. 250-268) states that "equal status contact" creates more favorable attitudes when the contact isin pursuit Of common goals (p. 276). Cas- ual contacts do not have. predictable results, and may actually strengthen negative stereotypes (p. 252). Allport also found that status was significantly related to atti- tudes. (Studies Of attitudes toward Negroes demonstrate that people having contact with high status or high occupa- tional group Negroes hold more favorable attitudes than those whose contacts have been with low status Negroes (pp. 251,, 261-262). Jacobson, et a1 (1960, p. 210-213) suggested that equal status contacts are more likely to’develOp friction (i.e., result in unfavorable attitudes) if the basis of the status equality is unsure; i.e., if one group does not fully accept the equality which is felt by the other group. Zetterberg (1963, p. 13) has reviewed social contact considerations Of Malawski in which the effects of frequency - 01' social contact On liking or disliking are dependent on two Other variables: "Cost Of avoiding interaction, and availability of alternative rewards...if the costs of avoid- 1118 interaction are low, and if there are available alter- native sources Of reward, the more frequent the interaction, the greater the mutual liking." Phenomenolo’gioally, these Observations seem related to the felt freedom Of a person to interact with another and his choice of this interaction ' 49 over other activities perceived as rewarding. Felty (1965, p. 31) has summarized these contact variables: .......frequent contact with a person or group is likely to lead to more favorable attitudes if: 1. 2. 3. h. the contact is between status equals in pursuit Of common goals (Allport, 1958, p. 267)° the contact is perceived as instrumental to the realization Of’a desired goal value (Rosenberg, contact is with members of’a higher status group (Allport 1958, pp. 254, 261-262); contact is among status equals and the basis of status is unquestioned (Jacobson, et a1, 1960, pp. 210-213); contact is volitional (as reinterpreted from Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13); contact is selected over other rewards (as rein- terpreted from.Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13). The Measurement of Attitudes .\ ‘ 7’ _General Considerations Attitude has beenpreviously defined as a "delimited ‘totality of behavior with resgect to something" (Guttman, 1950, :p. 51). 'Responses on an attitude scale are one form of delim- :ited.behavior, but the attitude universe may consist of many forms of behavior which are more or less intercorrelated and Which form separate sub-universes. An adequate attitude ab- straction from this universe should include sampling from eacll of the possible sub-universes, a task of doubtful eme Pirical possibility. A statement Of the conceptual problem, h“fever, pOints up limitations in the range Of inferences one they make frOm a limited sampling of behavior. There will PrObably be a relationship between the statements one makes 50 about a person with a disability, and how one behaves overtly toward that person, but the relationship cannot be assumed without empirical support. Green (195A, pp. 335-336) makes three other salient points about attitudes, their underlying characteristics, and their relationship to other variables. First, there must be a consistency of responses in respect to some social object. Second, the attitude itself is an abstraction from a set of consistent, or covarying responses. Responses themselves are not attitudes; rather, the attitude is deé fined by the latent variable. The detection of this latent variable requires certain scale properties.) Finally, an attitude differs from other psychological variables (with the exception of value) because it is always in terms of a referrent class of social objects.- The approach to attitude assessment known as scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3) is consistent with the above considerations, and it is this approach which has been used in reSpect to the attitude var- iables employed in this study. _8_ cale Analysi s The summary presentedchere is not meant to be exhaus- tive, but rather, it is intended to demonstrate a rationale and.a description of the technique used in this study. The basic reference to this material is the work of Guttman (1950). Discussions of the technique are to be found in _ ’ Green(1954), Edwards (1957), and Goods and.Hatt (1952). Sca whether a tension. will yield The orderi essentiall‘ 0f itezs f M occur, and theref lying Sing SPCndent w CharaCterj Score, TUE the res'po; a Set of j a higher 1 61‘ On eVe ;. 62) , rePTOG’uci ‘QOWIedge has alSc t‘e Perl“ ’2! 9L“, but 51 Scale analysis is a technique for determining whether'a set of items can be ordered.along a single di- mension. A particular universe that is one-dimensional will yield samples that are likewise one-dimensional. The ordering of respondents-from one sample should be essentially the same as that obtained from another sample of items from the universe. If predicted ordering does not occur, the universe is judged to be multi-dimensional and therefore not scalable. (When items do suggest an under- lying single dimension, it is apprOpriate to describe a re- apondent with a higher score as possessing more of the characteristic being measured than someone with a lower score. The Guttman scaling technique focuses on ranking the respondents rather than the itens. "We shall call a set of items of common content a scale if a person with a higher rank than another person is just as high or high- er On every item than the other person" (Guttman, 1950, p. 62). The item.responses of each respondent should be reproducible (allowing about a 10% error factor) from a knowledge of the respondent's total score rank. Guttman has also described the quasi-scale, which may occur when the reproducibility of a scale is lower than the required 90%, but when the errors occur in a random pattern. MiChi"a FPieSen number may at ‘ Dr- Job Vice co. tiOnal ‘ °SSenti. PErs (ins! 52 The selection of a criterion of 90% reproducibility is no more an absolute standard than is the selection of an alpha of .05 for the test of significance. With respect to some studies, a lower limit of reproducibility may be quite acceptable, while in other studies, an even higher limit may have to be set to insure desired results. The real criteria with respect to scale error would seem to be the random nature of occurrence of the errors. The error pattern Of the quasi-scale question is recognizable from the manner in which fairly large numbers of errors that occur gradually decrease in number as one moves further and further away from the cutting point. These errors.......do not group together like non- scale errors" (Suchman, 950, pp. 160-161). Michigan State University Cross-cultural Studies The author is greatly indebted to Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) whose studies served as the basis for a number Of cross-cultural investigations currently under- way at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan. The present study is designed to pro- vide comparative data from the United States. The occupa- tional groups as well as the majority of hypotheses are essentially the same for all of the studies. Felty (1965) found in Costa Rica that Leadership ‘value was negatively related to "Attitudes Toward Disabled I2ersons" scores as was hypothesized. He furnished further (evidence that persons who score high in need for power and (ii: tel ed an we C‘r a) .1. 53 control over others tend to score low in acceptance of dis- abled persons. He reported that his study appeared to con- firm the negative relationship between comparative values and acceptance of the handicapped, however, the positive relationship between asset values and acceptance of the disabled was not confirmed. 0n the attitude variables, Felty found significant differences between males and females. For example, males tended to be more traditional in their orientation toward education and placed more emphasis on basic subject matter and on discipline than did their female counterparts. Con- versely, females were more inclined to accept progressive, child-centered ideas. He cautioned that since the "educa- tors" as a group were also high in progressivism and low in traditionalism leaves a question as to whether this is prim-‘ arily an occupatiOnal characteristic or a genuine sex difference. Friesen (1966) found in Columbia and Peru, a signif- ‘ icant relationship between the combined contact variables (i.e. frequency, enjoyment Of, alternatives to, and avoid- ance of) and favorable attitudes toward handicapped persons. Ease of avoidance (i.e., cost Of interaction) contributed Inost to this relationship. Friesen also found, as predicted, that females had ssignificantly higher mean scores than males on the Benevo- JLence value scale. Men were found to be less accepting Of 5h handicapped persons. Contrary to Felty's findings, Friesen found little difference in terms of mean scores between men and women on prOgressive attitudes toward education, which may indicate differences between men and women in Costa Rica versus Columbia and Peru. Friesen likewise found a significant relationship between attitudes toward handicapped persons and change orientation items: the more change oriented, the more pos- itive the attitude. Hypotheses concerning the SER group °with reference to scores on the HP attitude scale and the value scales were all confirmed, with the SER group being more positive toward the disabled, and more asset and less comparative oriented. Additional cross-cultural and related studies are nearing completion at Michigan State University utilizing the same general design and instrumentation as the present study. While they were not available for review, they will be listed in the references. One study (Cessna) will ruse samples from England, Holland, Belgium, France, Denmark, and Yugoslavia. Other studies examine: the attitudes of ministers toward mental retardation (Heater); the attitudes of college counselors (Palmerton); the attitudes of mothers toward various handicaps (Sinha); the differential attitudes of various groups of special educators (Mader); a comparison (of the attitudes of special educators versus regular teach- ‘ers (Green); the relationship between attitudes, values, r i. ._c.su.l._.,). Nile... r 1,4,2...ch 6.... A l I I We 55 contact and theological orientations (Dean); the degree of integration of handicapped children into regular classes (Proctor); and, attitudes toward general disability versus deafness (Weir). All of these studies, under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan, are scheduled for completion in 1967 or 1968 and are included here to make them known to the profesSiOnal community. and we: of Hans kichita from ea least 1 tions 0" CHAPTER~III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES The research pOpulatiOn consisted of 391 adult men and women employed in selected occupations in the state of Kansas, primarily in the urban and suburban area Of Wichita, It was planned to have equal representation from each of the following occupational groups, with at least 100 persons to a group (actual sample representa- tions are shown below): 1. 2. Research POpulation Persons working directly in a teaching or training relationship to physically handi- capped persons (i.e. professional special educigion and rehabilitation personnel. N - 5. Elementary and secondary teachers who are not necessarily in any direct working re- lationship with physically handicapped persons. N - 101 Workers employed in the local labor force; salaried white collar workers, skilled laborers, clerical workers, unskilled workers, etc. N - 100 Executive and managerial personnel engaged primarily in industry. N'- 5 Call: ance 56mg, Can < The ,. 1958; 57 The rationale for the selection of these occupa- tional groups was based on their relationship, or poten- tial relationship, to the physically handicapped and/or to education as a social institution. Each of the groups have special relationships to rehabilitation and to educa- tion. The importance of professionals involved specifi- cally in special education or rehabilitation Of the handi- capped cannot be overemphasized. This group, in most in- stances, will make the initial contacts with the physically handicapped outside Of the home. The success or failure of the entire adjustment process for the handicapped is, to a great extent, dependent on the positive or negative nature of these initial contacts. Theoretically, if special education and rehabilita- tion programs have been successful, with respect to their defined functions, the next group chronologically with im- portant contact will be regular classroom teachers in pub- lic elementary and secondary schools. The attitudes which these professionals bring to the classroom will likewise significantly affect the adjustment process of the physi- cally handicapped. The teacher,_who either through ignor- ance or because of negative feelings, questions the pre- sence of a physically handicapped child in her classroom, can cause irreparable damage to the child's self-concept. The writings of various authors (Dickstein and Dripps, 1958; Haring, et a1, 1958; Kvaraceus, 1956; Murphy, 1960; 58 O'Connor and O'Connor, 1961) in addition to the writer's personal experience, suggest that regular class teachers are often threatened by the presence of a physically handi- capped child in their rooms. It was considered essential, therefore, to include this group in the study. Chronologically, persons engaged in business, indus- try, and professional endeavors (the executive-managerial group) will next have contact with those handicapped persons~ who are sufficiently rehabilitated to seek admittance to the labor force. It will be this managerial group who will largely determine the vocational-economic adjustment of the physically handicapped. The attitudes these perspective employers hold toward the handicapped will influence their decisions of whether or not to extend employment to this group. There are few situations more frustrating or dis- couraging than that of a well-trained, highly-qualified handicapped person who is unable to secure employment be- cause of the unwarranted fears and biases of employers. If for whatever reasons, executive and managerial personnel are unwilling to hire the handicapped, the efforts of spec- ial education teachers and rehabilitation workers will, to a large measure, be wasted. . Last, but certainly not least important, is the labor- ing group who are the potential co-workers of the physically handicapped. The attitudes of fellow workers will be anoth- er determining factor in the vocational adjustment that the 59 handicapped will be able to effect. Research has shown that handicapped persons often fail on the job, not be- cause they are unable to carry out their assignments, but rather, because they are unable to get along with their fellow workers and supervisors. It is felt that the four groups described above rep- resent different stages in the adjustment process faced by the person with a physical handicap. Certainly, there are other groups within the community which play important roles in the adjustment of the handicapped such as the family, social organizations, religious groups, etc. For the pur- poses of the present study, however, sampling was limited to the aforementioned groups. These same groups also represent important relation- ships to education as a social institution, The SER group must fully understand the purposes and goals of general education if they are to effect the integration and assimil- ation of the handicapped child. The importance of regular class teachers to education should be apparent. The mana- gerial and executive group, due to their position of influ- ence in the community, will frequently have a powerful voice in establishing policy and financial provisions for educa- tion. The laboring group represents the largest consumers of American education. Two further considerations exist which contributed to the preference for these particular groups. First, 60 it was assumed that different value orientations would be found among persons in these different occupational categor- aies. Secondly, each of the groups represented different kinds of contact and frequencies of contact with the handi- capped. It was instrumental to the hypotheses to have these variations within the sample. Sglecgign of Variables The theoretically derived variables were those sus- pected to have some particular relationship to the three criterion variables: (a) attitudes toward physical disability, (b) attitudes toward visual disability, and (c) attitudes toward education. In addition to the three criterion vari- ables, selected additional variables were included which were intended to provide information concerning the charac- teristics of persons who work with the handicapped, rather than in respect to attitudes toward handicapped persons. These variables are those of: (a) mobility, (b) persOnalism, (c) institutional satisfaction, (d) religiousity, and (e) change orientation. The major variables used in the study are discussed in the following section. Attitudes Toward Physical Disability The items used in this scale were taken from the Attitudes Toward Disability Scale (Yuker, et a1., 1960). Adequate test-retest reliability sOOres were reported,’ 61 and various construct validity measures which were all collected from disabled employees of Abilities, Inc., a light manufacturing company which employs disabled work- er. Among these employees, the test was found to be neg- atively related to age and.anxiety, and positively related to verbal intelligence and job satisfaction. Females and those with low absentee rates made higher scores on the instrument. -A1though the validating group has question- able generality and the rationale for item selection is not clear, the test represents an attempt to fill a gap in the field and warrants further study. Modifications were made in the provisions for re- spondent scoring. The Likert-type format was retained, however, the number of response categories for each item was reduced from seven to four. A further modification was that instead of requiring the respondent to transfer a number from a set of coded categories at the tOp of the page to indicate his response, the item alternatives were stated following each question. Since it was intended to submit the items to scale analysis rather than follow the suggested scoring procedures, there was no need to retain the same numerical scores. It was also felt that these modifications would simplify the task for the respondents: Fifteen of the 20 attitude items are statements of. differences between disabled persons and those not dis- abled, and agreement with these 15 statements is interpre-- ted as reflecting an unfavorable attitude. 62 Attitudes Toward Educatigg Modifications similar to those described above were made on the Attitudes Toward Education Scale devel- Oped by Kerlinger (see Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959). These scales were included for three reasons: first, because they are short and simple to ads minister; second, because in a study so closely interwoven with educational concerns, the results are informative in their own right; third, because there is a rationale for hypothesizing a relationship between progressive attitudes toward education and attitudes toward physical disability. The scales represent a factor analysis of’a set of no items given to 598 subjects of varying backgrounds, but all appar- ently of above average education. The scales have been found to hold up under cross-validation; however, there is no indication that persons of lower educational attainment have been adequately represented in the studies. The com-' plete instrument consists of 20 items, of which 10 are "progressive", and 10 are "traditional." As employed in the present study, the progressive and traditional items were analyzed independently as two separate scales. The Intensity Scaleg A simple approximation of the intensity function has been successfully attained by asking a question about intensity after each content question. One fOrm used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly," si pa 1‘ 5c |||V< uIAI lull}. l... I---~|l..l.!.)t’ SI .63 a p . _ , c , amines _ 63 and "Not so strongly." Repeating such a question after each content question yields a series of in- tensity answers. Using the same procedure as . . . for content answers, these are scored and each respondent is given an intensity score. The inten- sity scores are then cross tabulated with the con- tent scores (Suchman, 1950, p. 219). This procedure was the one adopted to measure inten- sity for both the attitude items relating to handicapped persons and to education. The Only difference was that four response categories were used instead of the three suggested by Suchman. Attitudes Toward Visual Disabiligy The items utilized in this scale were taken from the Attitudes Toward Blindness Scale (Cowen, et a1, 1958). The authors were extremely exacting in their construction of this research instrument and demonstrated considerable evidence of construct validity. The authors report split half reliability of .83 before correction and .91 after correction. The original instrument consisted of 100 items administered to college students. The final form consists of the thirty (30) items with the highest inter- correlations. For use in the present study, the twenty items with the highest tetrachoric correlations were selec- ted. Intercorrelations of the items used for the study range from .52 to .75. 6h Interpersonal Values In selecting the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal values (Gordon, 1960), two factors were considered: first, an instrument was needed which would yield scores on items that seemed to be logically related to the values under test in the hypotheses, those of "asset" orientation to Others, and "comparative" orientation to others. 0f the six subscales in this instrument, the one for Benevolence is described as follows: "Doing things for other peOple, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being gen- erous" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Among studies presented in a subsequent research brief, Benevolence was found to cor- relate .A9 with the Nurturance score on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and negatively with Achievement (-.24) and Aggression (-.28) (Gordon, 1963, p. 22). It was decided on the basis of the description, the item con- tent, and the intercorrelations with the EPPS that the Gordon Benevolence Value would be an adequate Operation- alization of the "asset value." The second value to be Operationalized was that of a "comparative" orientation toward others. The Gordon man- ual offers the following definition for Recognition value: "Being looked up to and.admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition" (Gor- don, 1960, p. 3). The following definition was offered for Conformity value: "Doing what is socially correct, follow- ing regulations closely, doing what is accepted and prOper, 65 being a conformist" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Leadership was defined as, "Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leadership or power" (gordon, 1960, p. 3). All three of these values would appear to involve a ranking of Others on some kind of absolute scale, either of social acceptability (Con- formity), achievement (Recognition), or power (Leadership). On the basis of surface considerations of item content, ' Recognition and Leadership items were judged to be repre- sentative of comparative values. Eggsonal Contact Variables Two types of variables related to personal contact were represented by 15 items in the questionnaires. Four items (PO}1-A) were related to educational contact, nine items (PQPHP 1-9) were related to contact with physically disabled persons, one item (PQ-HP 10) was related to con- tact with mentally retarded, and one item (PO-HP 11) was related to contact with emotionally disturbed persons. Each item generated a score. Single-item scores are notoriously unstable, and no reliability data can be offered.) There is some evidence of the predictive valid- .ity of some of the items, in respect to expectancies that known groups should respond in certain ways. For example, it was expected that persons working in SER would report a higher frequency of contact with disabled persons than lPQ refers to Personal Questionnaire; PQ-HP refers to Personal Questionnaire-Randicapped Persons. . se fr v0 CC 66 ‘would persons not working in the field of disability. This was indeed the case in Costa Rica (Felty, 1965) and might be considered an item validation. Contact With Education These items (PQ 4-7) requested respondents to indi- cate: (a) how'much they had worked in schools or educational settings- number A; (b) what percent of income was derived from such work - number 5; (c) how they felt about such work - number 6; and (d) what other work opportunities they could have alternatively chosen - number 7. Contact With Physically Disabled These items (PQPHP 1-9) requested respondents to in- dicate: (a) the kind of physically handicapped with which they had had the most contact, or’knew the most about - numbers 1 and 2; (b) the type Of relationship they had had with physically disabled persons - family, friends, working relationships, etc. - number 3; and (c) the approximate number of encounters they had had with physically disabled persons - number b. Other questions attempted to explore alternative Opportunities - number 9, enjoyment of contact with handicapped persons - number 8, ease of avoidance of such contacts ; number 5, gain from contact - number 6, and percent of income from working with the handicapped - number 7. 67 Preferences for Personal Relationships This set of three items (PQ 21-23) was devised to help identify respondents, or groups of respondents, along a traditional-modern dimension. The predominance of affec- tive relationships as opposed to effectively neutral rela- tionships is supposedly one of the distinguishing character- istics of the "Gemeinshaft", or traditional, orientation (e.g., Loomis, 1960, p. 6lff). ‘Question 21 asked the re- spondent to indicate the approximate percent of personal interactions on the job which were with persons who were close personal friends. Question 22 asked how important it was to work with persons who were close friends. Ques- tion 23 was intended to measure diffuseness or specificity of personal interactions under the hypothesis that the traditionally oriented person is more likely to have per- sonal interactions which are diffused between job and famp ily, or other affective non-job interactions. "Members of the Gemeinshaft-like system are likely to know each other well, their relationships are functionally diffuse in that most of the facets of human personality are re- vealed in the prolonged and intimate associations common to such systems" (Loomis, 1960, p. 72). The SER group, then, being committed to "asset" values (by hypothesis), being,more concerned with intrinsic valuation of the per- son rather than valuing him for his absolute achievements, should also express a greater need for personal interactions 68 generally, and.a greater diffuseness of interpersonal re- lationships. Institutional Satisfaction This was a set of nine questions (PQ 31: A-I) adapted from Hyman (1955, p. #00). The institutions se- lected (schools, business, labor, government, health ser- vices, and churches) were listed and an opportunity offer- ed to indicate whether they were judged excellent, good, fair, or poor in respect to how well they do their partic- ular Job in the community. It was postulated that peOple working in SER would be less satisfied with institutions generally than peOple in other groups. Persons with high education in relation to income might also be expected to be less satisfied than others. Again, no reliability es- timates are offered, and validity will be a function of concurrent correlation coefficients. Change Orientation This set of six questions (PQ 39-L3 and L7) were adapted from Programs Interamericano de Informacion Pep- ular (PIIP) in Costa Rice. The respondents were asked to react to a number of statements which purported to reflect attitudes toward change in such areas as health practices, .child rearing practices, birth control, automation, politi- cal leadership, and self change. Four response alternatives to indicate the degree of agreement were given: strongly. 69 agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, and strongly disagree. It was postulated that people working in SER would have responses which suggested a greater flexibility - and openess toward change. This favorableness toward change would, of course, challenge many existing cultural norms. 0n the other hand, the M.and L group might be ex- pected to respond in ways which suggested resistance to .Change 0 Demographic Variables Respondents were asked in the PQ to indicate their placement on several variables often found to be of signif- icance in sociological analysis: these were education (26,, 27), occupation (37), rental (30), age (8), sex (face sheet), marital status (12), number of children (13), number of - siblings (l6, 17), home ownership (29), mobility (ll, 12, 15), and ruralaurban youth (9). In the dissertation analy- sis, not all of these variables will be used because of time and space limitations. All of these variables will ‘be utilized more fully in the larger study being conducted by Dr. John E. Jordan,.Michigan State University. Religiositz Three questions (PQ 18, 19 and 38) were oriented 1 toward religion: (a) religious preference; (b) the felt importance of religion to the respondent; and (c) conform- ity to the rules and regulations of the church. "Religiosity" 70 also related to the traditional-modern dimension, and higher scores would be expected among the lower income group, and among persons with less education. Collection of Data Data was collected by group administration of the instruments in all instances. A set of procedures (see Appendix 6-2) were developed for the administration of the instruments. The instructions consisted of: (a) a statement of appreciation for the cOOperation of the group; (b) a general statement of the purpose of the investigation; (c) a statement of the format of the administration; (d) an oral eXplanation of the various instruments. The instruments were administered in the following order: ' 1. Definitions of Disability 2. Attitudes Toward Education 3. Survey of Interpersonal Values 4. The Personal Questionnaire 5. Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 6. Personal Questionnaire (Handicapped Persons) 7. Attitudes Toward Visually Handicapped Persons . An administrator's summary sheet (See Appendix 0-?) was developed for the recording of pertinent administration data. This included the names of those who had helped to arrange for the administration, who had assisted with the administration, etc. It included relevant descriptive data about common occupational characteristics and occupational diversity. A final section was for the recording of test conditions: adequacy of lighting, space, ventilation, noise, and any unusual interruptions or difficulties with the administration. i .V'F. .. “a“. . d.llil’li . JI- r..,‘1f| PIG Fem 71 Statistical Procedures Descriptive Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark, l96h) designated as FCC I and FCC II were used. These programs . were used to compile the frequency distributions for every item. This proved to be a very useful step in selecting variables for analysis and in gaining a clinical "feel" for the data. ’ Mean Differences Analyses — For convenience of computer programming, the E statistic was used for all testing of mean differences, even though differences between two means are usually tested by the 2 statistic. The results are the same (Edwards, 1960, p. 1&6). If an.§,between two means is significant, inspection of the size of the two means will indicate which one is higher and thus the main contributor to the variance reflected in the E, In the two-way E’stat- istic, sex and occupational group are independent variables.' Since a significant §,merely shows that the variance projected in the hypothesis is greater than could be ex- pected by chance, the specific relationship between the dependent variable and.the variable represented by the lev- els or groups must be investigated. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Edwards, 1960, pp. l36ff), as extended for un- equal replications by Kramer (1960), was used to investi- gate the extent to which a particular subgroup mean contrib- 72 utes to the total variance represented by the §,test. This enables the researcher to order the group means from high to low and then to examine the "difference" between successive pairs of means to ascertain which one(s) do in fact statistically depart from chance at a stated level of significance. (The UNEQI routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was (used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statis- tics. The program is designed to handle unequal frequen- cies occurring in the various categories. In addition to the analysis of variance tables, the frequencies, sums, means, standard deviations, sums of squares, and the sums of the squared deviations of the mean were included for each category. The approximate significance probability of the 2 statistic is also included. This convient figure enables the researcher to know at a glance whether or not the E was significant without referring to a table. For example, if the number printed out was .05, the level of confidence, with appropriate degrees of freedom for a giv- en E, would be .05. However, if .00 was printed out, the level of confidence was to be considered to be .005 or less. An analysis of covariance program (Ruble, Paulson, Rafter, 1966), which allowed for unequal frequencies, was utilized.to compute the two-way analysis of variance. 73 Relational andlor Predictive Analyses The CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) provides a great deal of data which can be gathered from one analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of specified sub-groups, or parti- tionings, of the data. For each specified group (i.e., total, male-female, etc.) a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in this research project were: the means andstandard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. Tests of significance of the correlation coeffi- cients from zero are the usual ones, with tables entered for the apprOpriate degrees of freedom. Partial correlation is also one of the outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC 3600 pro- gram at Michigan State University (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966).~ One benefit of the use of partial correlation is that a num- ber of variables which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion, or dependent variable, can be examined simul- taneously. Often, when a series of Pearsonian product-moment g;g_are computed between a criterion and a set of variables considered to be predictors of the criterion, spurious con- clusions may be obtained because the predictor variables are themselves interrelated, rather than directly predictive of the criterion. 7b In a partial correlation solution to the problem, these relationships among the predictor variables are taken into account in computing the true correlation of each variable with the criterion. That is, the effects of all but one variable are held constant. The use of multiple regression analysis is recom- mended by Ward (1962, p. 206) because it "not only reduces the dangers inherent in piecemeal research, but also facil- itates the investigation of broad problems never before con- sidered 'researchable'." Several multiple regression analyses were done. The first set of analyses used as a criterion the total raw ' scores from the handicapped persons scale, the second set used respectively the total scores on the progressive and traditional education scales, the third set used the scores. from the change orientation items, and the fourth set used the total raw scores from the blind persons scale. Since the computer program for multiple regression did not handle "missing data", persons with missing data were drapped from the particular multiple regression analysis. Major Research Hypotheses \ Hypotheses Related to Contact mrequency. Intensity and ttitude Scores H-la: The more frequent the contact with disabled i persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the attitude-toward-disabled-persons (ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable . H-la Hypothesis Derivation: From considerations of Rosen- berg, Fee, and Guttman and Foa, to the effect that contact frequency is directly related to attitude intensity, re- gardless of content directions (see Chapter 2). ,H-la Instrumentation: Contact frequency, by a direct ques- tion,(i.e. Pqehp t, Appendix 3-5); ATDP intensity scores ob- tained through independent intensity questions following each attitude content statement (see Appendix B-h). §;lp: The more frequent the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education scale, regardless of whether attitude is traditional or progressive. 31:1} Hypothesis Derivation: Same as His above. Ii-ll: Instrumentation: Contact fre uenc , by a direct question, (i.e. PO 1., Appendix B-3); education intensity scores obtained as in H-la above (Appendix B-l). 76 .fing: High frequency of contact with disabled and blind persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high fre- quency is concurrent with (a) alternate rewarding Opportuni- ties, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact. H-2a Hypothesis Derivatipp: From considerations of Homan's, Zetterberg, and various studies in special education (see . ' Chapter 2). H-2a Instrumentatipp: Attitudes toward disabled persons, by a 20 statement attitude instrument develOped by Yuker, pp 5; (1960) and modified for the present study (Appendix B-A). (Attitudes toward blind persons by a 30 statement attitude instrument developed by Cowen, £3 E1 (1958) and modified for the present study (appendix 8-6). Contact variables by direct questions in the PQ-HP: frequency by question no. A, alternatives by no. 9, enjoypent by no. 8, and avoidance by n0. 5. ,fl:§pz4 High frequency of contact with education will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent ‘with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact. li-Zb Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-2a above. li-Zb Instrumentation: Attitudes toward education by a 20 statement attitude instrument develOped by Kerlinger (1959) .and.modified for the present study. Contact variables by ' direct questions in the PQ: frequency by question no. A, 77 alternatives by no. 7, and enjoyment by no. 6. Hypotheses Related to 'Attitudes and VaIue Scores H-ga: Persons who score higp in the need for power and control over others will tend to score lgy_in acceptance of disabled ersons, and plipd persons specifically. '§;yp: Persons who score pigh in need for power and control over others will tend to score 12! in progressive attitudes toward education and.higp in traditional attitudes toward education. H-3a.b 'Hypotheses Derivation: From considerations of Wright in respect to asset vs comparative valuations of others (see Chapter 2), and of Rosenberg to the effect that the more the belief content of an attitude is instrumental to value maintenance, the more favorable will be the evalu- ation of the object of the attitude. Persons with high power needs are applying a comparative yardstick in evalu- ations of others and should be expected to devalue persons with disabilities as well as progressive attitudes toward education since the latter usually implies changes in the status quo. Some empirical findings of this appear in the writings of Whiteman and Lukoff in respect to blindness (see Chapter 2) and Felty (196A). _ H-za,b Instrumentation: Need for power and control mea- sured by the Leadership (L) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal values (Appendix 8-2); attitudes-toward- I~1H.t¢:.m..t. Ti. . 78 disabled-persons, as in H-2a, attitudes toward education, as in.H-2b, and attitudes-toward-blind-persons, as in H-2a. h:h_: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score $2! in acceptance of dis- abled persons, and blind persons specifically. h:hh: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score,;pg in progressive atti- tudes toward education and high_in traditional attitudes toward education. H-Aa.b Hypotheses Derivation: Same as H-3 above. H-hh,b Instrumentation: Need for recognition and achieve- ment measured by the Recognition (R) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B-Z), attitudes- toward-disabled—persons, as in H-Za, attitudes toward educa- tion, as in H-2b, and attitudes-toward-blhnd-persons, as in H-2a. h:2_: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of disabled persons, and blind persons specifically. H- b: Persons who score‘high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in progressive atti- tudes toward education and $25 in traditional attitudes toward education . hzjg: Women will score highs; than men in (a) the need to help others, (b) positive attitudes toward the disabled, (c) progressive attitudes toward education, and 79 (d) positive attitudes toward the blind. H-5a,b.c Hypotheses Derivation: Same as H-i above, but stated in terms of an asset-value orientation rather than a comparative value orientation. H-Sa,b.c Instrumentation: Need to be helpful and generous measured by Benevolence (B) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B-2), attitudes-toward- .disabled-persons as in H-2a, attitudes toward education as in H-2b, and attitudes-toward-blind-persons, as in H-2a. Hypotheses Related to Change Orientation and . Attitude Scores H-6: Persons who score‘high on change orientation will score high on positive attitudes toward handicapped and blind persons and progressive educational attitudes and score ipy on traditional educational attitudes. ‘h-6 Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-3 above and extended to connote that high score on change orientation represents departure from the status quo and high relationship to new ideas (i.e. progressivism) and care for the handicapped (i.e. concern for individual differences). H-6 Instrumentation: Change orientation measured by ques- tions 39-h3, and A7 in the PQ. These questions deal with change in health practices, child rearing practices, birth control, automation, political leadership, and self change. Attitudes toward the handicapped measured as in H-2a and toward education as in H-2b, and attitudes-toward-blind- persons, as in H-2a. 80 H otheses Related to Characteristics of Those Working DirectIy With ‘Qighhied Persons (SER) hzz: Persons working directly with disabled and blind persons (SER) will have lower mean attitude~toward~ disabled and blind-persons scores than will persons in other occupational categories . H-7 Hypothesis Derivation: From considerations of Zetter- ‘ berg (see Chapter 2), to the effect that high frequency of contact is positively associated with favorableness of atti- tudes if (a) the interaction could be easily avoided, and (b) there are other rewarding activities to engage in. The linkage of (a) and (b) with occupational categories rests on the assumption that a measure of choice and job alter- natives was present in the selection of employment; i.e., that SER employees chose this occupation in preference to others. I H-z Instrumentation: Attitudes-toward-disabled—persons, as in H-2a and attitudes-toward-blind-persons, as in H-2a. h;§: The SER group will have higher mean score than will persons in other occupational categories in re- spect to the value of Benevolence (asset value) and lower mean scores in respect to the values of Leadership and Recognition (comparative value). ‘ H-8 Hypothesis Derivation: Same as h;2 above and applied specifically to the SER group rather than to those who measure high on Benevolence and low on Leadership and Recognition. 81 H-8 Instrumentation: Same as H- , h and 2 for Leadership, Recognition and Benevolence respectively. H-9a: The SER group will have a higher mean score in progressiveéattitudes-taward-education than will per- sons in other occupational categories. . h:2h: The SER group will have ipygh,mean score in traditionaleattitudes-toward-education than will per- sons in other occupational categories. H-9a,b Hypotheses Derivation: Same as h:2,and.h,and applied specifically to the SER group rather than to those who measure high on progressive attitudes and low on trad- itional-attitudes-toward-education. H-9a,b Instrumentatioh: Same as H-5b above. hzig: The SER group will have a highgh mean score than will other occupational groups on the following change orientation.measures: (a) health practices, (b) child rearing practices, (c) birth control practices, and (d) automation. H-lO Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-3a,b,c and exten- ded to imply that persons who score high on progressive- attitudes-toward-education will also score high on change orientation variables since both areas represent dissatise faction with the status quo and emphasize the individual ' and empirical solutions to current problems. 82 H-lO Instrumentation: Change orientation measured by a series of questions in the PQ on the areas stated in H-lO (Appendix B-3). h:ii: The SER group will have highgh mean scores than other occupational groups on the amount of contact with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons. h:ii_ Hypothesis Derivation: The SER group was chosen for known "prolonged contact" with the physically handicapped. The current hypothesis postulates a generalization effect in that increased contact with one area of disability im- plies increased contact with other areas of disability or exceptionality. H-ll Instrumentatiph: Contact frequency with the physic- ally handicapped measured as in hzih and contact frequency with the mentally retarded and with the emotionally dis- turbed measured by questions 10 and 11 in the PQAHP. h;ig: Persons whose primary experience has been at the elementary level of education will hold more pos- itive attitudes toward physically handicapped and blind persons than will persons whose primary experience has been at other levels of education or those persons with no primary educational contact. H-12 Hypothesis Derivation: It is felt that the orien- tation and experience of persons with primary contact at 83 the elementary level will be predisposed to more "child- centered" (i.e., asset-minded) orientations with respect to children. On the other hand, it is felt that the training, orientations and experience of persons with primary contact at the secondary or university level predisposes them to more "content-centered' orientations (i.e., comparative-minded) with respect to children. H-12 Instrumentation: Primary educational contact, by a ‘ direct question, i.e. PQ no. 1, attitudes—towardpdisabled- persons and attitudes-toward-blind-persons, as in H-2a. hzil: Persons who have had primary experiences with the blind vs other types of physically handicapped, will hold more positive attitudes toward the blind. h:i3 Hypothesis Derivatioh: As in H-2a above. H-l} Instrumentation: Primary contact with handicapped persons, by a direct question, i.e. PQ-HP no. 1 (Appendix B-5). and attitudes-toward-blind-persons, as in H-2a. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The analysis of the data is organized into two main sections: Section 1. descriptive data on designated char- acteristics of the sample; Section 2. the testing of the hypotheses presen- ted at the endiof Chapter III and comparisons of mean differences of various scores when the respondents are divided according to (a) sex, (b) interest group (occu- ational) categories, (c) contact with criterion, and (d) related indices. Correlational relationships (zero order, multiple and partial) will also be presented for selected variables of the study. Section 1: Descriptive Data In this section the descriptive characteristics of the sample are presented. The data is derived from a com- bination of the FCC I and II programs (see p. 65) and the ' CDC 3600 MDSTAT program which provides a number of statis- ‘ tics (see p. 73) useful for simple demographic description. Tables 1 and 2 present the two major sub-divisions of the total sample: sex and interest (occupational) groups. Inspection of the tables reveals one major factor 85 which later will considerably effect the interpretation of the statistical data: the sex-linked character of some of the occupational groups. For those variables or hypotheses in which sex differences are obtained, the sex composition of the interest group would be an important factor in the analysis of the group differences. This is accounted for by use of the two-way analysis of variance procedures. TABLE l.--Distribution oflrespondents according to sex and interest group. 2 Interest Group Sex SER E M L Total Male, 22 36 59 65 182‘ Female 83 65 il 20 209 Total 105 101 100 85 391 In some instances the N's do not agree exactly between Tables 1, 2 and the tables containing the stat- istical material in Appendix A. This is due to problems of missing data and minor differences in classification. 2 Throughout the remainder of the study the follow- ing abbreviations will be used to designate the interest groups: SER - Spec. Educ., Rehab E - Education L - Labor M.- Manager/Executive 86 TABLE 2.--Occupationa1 composition of the total sample by sex and interest group. Occupation Frequency by Respondent Groups and Specific Occupation Code Description SER E M, L ‘Male Female Total (01-09, SER) 1 Adm. persons 2 2 2 2 Teachers 86 11 75 86 3 School spec. 6 5 11 services 11 A Univ. teachers 3 3 7 Para medical l l 1 8 Unskilled 1 1 1 9 Other 1 1 1 (10-19, Educators other than SER) . 10 Elem. teachers 76 22 54 76 11 Sec. teachers 2O 10 10 2O 12 Guidance l l ‘ l 14 Adm. persons 3 2 1 3 16 Open 1 l 1 (20-25, Medical, other than Rehab and Special Ed.) Surgeons 1 l 1 2L All other med.. ~ specialties 5 h l 5 26 Nurse, OT, PT, etc. 8 1 7 8 27 Aides l 1 1 (30-39, Professional and teachers other than previously listed) 30 Engineer 7 7 7 _ 31 Lawyers A 2 2 A 32 Ministers 8t Clergymen l 1 l 35 Researchers 3 3 3 37 Other 2 1 1 2 87 TABLE 2."( cont.) Code Description SER E M. L Male Female Total (AO-A9. Business and Industry) A0 Gov. officials 3 3 3 A1 .Mfg. exec. lO 9 1 10 A2 Non—mfg. exec. 5 h l 5 A3 Retail trades 17 15 2 17 AA Gen. exec. 13 10 3 13 #5 Open 3 3 3 A6 Farm owner 1 1 1 (50-59, White collar, office, clerical) 50 Clerical A2 12 30 A2 51 Sales worker 12 5 9 1g 52 Small dealer A - 5 1 5A Open 1 1 1 (60-69, Blue collar, foreman, craftsmen) Craftsman 7 7 7 61 Foreman A 3 ' 1 A. 63 Mechanics 1 1. 1 Bus % Cab driver 1 l 1 (70-7A Service, private household) 71 Private . household 1 l l 73 Misc. attendents - 7 7 7 (75-79, Military personnel) 75 Ranking Officers 1 l l 76 Junior Officers 1 l 1 78 NCO-Army 5 5 5 (80-86, Laborers) 80 Small farmers l l l 82 Mfg . durable 5 5 5 83 .Mfg. non-durble 1 1 1 8A Non-mfg. 2 2 2 87 Persons who have not worked 1 2 3 Totals SER E M. h Male Female Total 106 101 83, 101 177 216 393 88 Differences in Mean Education,_ihcome and Age 833FES Betweenpinterest Groups, Male. and Femgig Respondents .Table 3 presents the data for education, income, and age by sex and interest group. The Duncan's New Multiple Range Test has been used to analyze differences between the means in those cases where the 2 statistic indicated that an overall significant difference existed. Tables A-6 present the Duncan's procedures for analy- sis of the data in Table 3 on education, income and age. Throughout the remainder of the dissertation, the results of the Duncan's analysis will he reported within the tables analyzing mean differences. In each case, the same procedures will have been employed to secure the Duncan's Means Test results. Discussion of the Duncan's analyses will be con- tained in Chapter V. Since the data for education and income were analyzed in coded form, an interpretation of the coding is necessary. See Tables 7 and 8 for the education and income codes. The data is presented such that each score represents a range, i.e., number of grades completed or the amount of income. In education, the ranges are also uneven, which makes interpre- tation somewhat difficult. However, the data is at least ordinal, in that a higher score always represents a higher number of grades that the individual has completed, or the amount of income earned. 89 TABLE 3.--Comparison of mean differences, standard deviation, and h statistics in respect to three demographic variables for four occupational categories. Variable Occupation N Mean Standard Deviation E Sig of h one two one two way way way way sex grp sex grp Education SER 105 _6.8A 0.912 9.56 131.8 .005 .005 E 101 6.86 0.600 M 87 5.78 0.969 L 100 5.03 0.502 Total 3931? 1.09 Untested Ranking of Means: E(6. 86 >SER(6. 8A)>M(5. 78)>L(5. 03) Duncan's Means Test* E-L, E-M, SER-L, M-L Income SER 103 9.25 3. 9A0 0.36 6.76 .56 .005 M 85 11.69 h.h35 L 98 8.85 5.562 Total 387 9.83 A. 639 Untested Ranking of Means: M(1l.69)3>E(9. 82)7>SER(9.25)3>L(8.85) Duncan's Means Test*: MPL, M-R, M-E Age SER 105 36.50 11.996 1. 37 19. BA .2A .005 - E 100 37.6A 11.8 M 87 37.37 10. 923 L 100 27.01 lO.All Total 392 3A.56 12.1A3 Untested Ranking of Means: M(37.37)>E(37.2A)>SER(36.50)>L(27.01) Duncan's Means Test*: L-M, L-E, L-SER *P< .05. 90 TABLE A.--Duncan's Nemeultip e Means Test applied to means of education for four occupational groups. Range of.Mean (p) 2 3 A d.f. 380 Studentized rangfs for 5% test (Zp 2.77 2.92 3.02 R'p (RI 82p 380)2 2.10 2.22 2.30 Mean Differences3 E - L' (pA) V " 18.30’“ E - M (p3) - 10.36* SER - L (p3) I 18.28* E - SER (p2) SER - M (p2) 10.70’“ M - L (p2) 7.20:“ 1Taken from Edwards (1960, p. 373)- 2The square root mean square of the analysis of variance in Table 3 83 ".53 =3 .76 p the range of the means (2, 3 and A) 3Mean differences of columns 2, 3 and A have been trans- formed into the equivalent of T-scores for multiple means. To be significant the figure must exceed the R'p value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer (1956) is: (Xv-12) JET—— nY nz :>’SZP. error (ng§)of AOV *This level of confidence will be used on all Duncan's Multiple Range Tests. p<.05 91 TABLE 5.--Duncan's New Multiple Means Test applied to means of income scores for.four occupational groups. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 A d.f.380 Studentized ranges for 5% test (Zp 2.77 2.92 3.02 R'p (RI szp 380) 12.A6 13.14 13.59 Mean Differences M - L (pk) _ 27.30'“ .M - SER (p3) 23.A2* E - L . (p3) .M - E (p2) 17.95* E - SER (p2) ' SER - L (p2) 2°‘P < .05. 5: (17026-9:- A.5 TABLE 6.--Duncan's New Multiple Means Test applied to means of age scores for four occupational groups. Range of‘Mean (p) 2 3 A d.f.385 Studentized ran es for 5% teSt (Zp? 2.77 2092 3e02 3'? (RI 82p 385) 31.30 32.99 34.12 Mean Differences M - L (p4) 99.4? 'M.- SER (p3) _ E - L (p3) , 102.30* M - E (p2) .SER - E (p2) 95,35? SER - L (p2) ‘ *P (.05. s: (Fl-2877.9- : 11.3 is 92 TABLE 7.--Interpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment. Score Interpretation Range of Interval 1 Less than A years completed 0 - 3 inclusive 2 From A to 6 years completed A - 6 inclusive 3 From 7 to 9 years completed 7 - 9 inclusive A ' From 10 to 11 years completed 10 - 11 inclusive 5 Some college or university 12 - 15 inclusive 6 College or university degree 16 - - - - ' 7 Post-degree study ------ 8 Advanced degree ------ TABLE 8.--Interpretation of income scores in terms of actual income level. Score Interpretation Range of Interval 1 Less than $1, 000 01 2 From $1, 000 to 81, 999 02 3 From :52, 0001-. 2 ,999 03 4 From 83, OOOt 3,999 OA 5 From EA, 00,0 to 8A, 999 05 6 From p5, 000 to 85,999 06 7 From $6 ,OOOt 086, 999 O7 8 From $7,000t 7,999 08 9 From $8, OOOt 8,999 09 10 From $9, 000 to $9: 999 10 93 Summary of Description Data in Tables 3-8 The results of these tables must be interpreted with some caution, primarilybecause of the difficulties encoun- tered in testing the interaction between sex and occupation. The occupational categories are unequal, and the sex dis- tribution within categories is unequal. Additionally, there is the important question of the sex-linked character of some of the occupational categories. However this is con- trolled for by two-way analysis of variance. For those variables in which sex differences are ob- tained, the sex composition of the interest groups is an important factor in the analysis of group differences. The converse would, of course, also hold, since respondents are the same in each case, but only classified differently. Thus, in a given case where both occupational and sex classi- fications show significant F values, it is not possible to fully determine whether the differences occur independently, or are obtained for the other classification because of the interactions involved. It will be noted from the tables that the actual significance levels of the E values are printed out rather than indicating if they are significant at a stated level, i.e., .01 or .05. Since the computer program now provides this information, it Was decided to present the' actual significance values to enable the reader to make his own judgement when the level "just-makes" or "just-does- not-make" a previously stated acceptable level of statis- tical significance. 9A Tables 3-6 indicate that the E group has a higher educational attainment level than do the other occupation- al groups, and also that there is a significant difference between the educational levels of males and females. The economic level of the M group is higher than the other oc- cupational groups. No significant difference in income level was noted with respect to sex. Little difference was noted in age between the SER, E and M groups. The L group, however, was considerably younger than the other categories. Again, no significant differences in age between sexes were noted. Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differences and Correlational Analysis It was originally intended to use Guttman scale analysis procedures on the data. Since the computer pro- grams are not yet available at the Michigan State Univer- sity Computer Center, this part of the data analysis was not completed. However, the data will be submitted to scale analysis later in the larger international study discussed in Chapter III H-la: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statementg of the attitudes-toward-disabled-persons (ATDB) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. 95 Results indicated in Table 9 reveal that no signif- icant difference was found between persons with high and *- low contact with disabled persons on intensity scores for the attitudes-toward-disabled-persons scale. H-la cannot be considered supported. TABLE 9.--Maana, standard deviation, and}: statistic compar- ing h gh and low frequency of contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale. Variable N Mean of ATDP Standard §_ Sig Intensity Scale Deviation' gf Low frequency of contact 76 60.33 7.A9 .36 .56 High frequency of contact 1A0 59.67 7.77 Tbtal 216 59.90 7.60 H-lb: The more frequegt the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudeg Toward Education Scale, regardless of whether attitude is traditional or_proggessive. H-lb cannot be considered supported. The 3 statistic, Tables 10 and 11, indicates that the mean differences between persons with high and low contact with education, are not sig- nificantly different on either progressive or traditional in- tensity scores. While not statistically significant, the mean scores for both scales fall in the predicted direction. 96 TABLE 10.-Means, standard deviation, and F statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa- tion with intensity scores on the progressive- attitude-toward—education scale. Variable N Mean of Standard F, Sig Progressive Deviation of Intensity Scale Low frequency of contact 62 32.82 3.20 .26 .61 High frequency of contact . 22A 33.06 3.26 Total 286 33.01 3.2A TABLE ll.-~Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa- tion with intensity scores on the traditional- attitude-toward-education scale. Traditional Deviation Variable N Mean of Standard 2, Sig o Intensity Scale 3 Low frequency of contact 62 31.2A 3.75 1.0A .31 High frequency of contact 22A 31.79 3.7h Total 286 31.67 3.7A 97 Table 12 presents the zero-order correlations between contact and intensity scores on the attitude- toward-disabled-persons scale and the correlations be- tween contact scores and intensity scores for both pro~ gressive and traditional-attitude-toward—education scores for the various occupational groups. The correlations for males and females within each group are also given. Table 12 indicates a significant negative correla- tion between the contact and intensity scores of the ATDP scale for the SER group. The correlations between contact and intensity scores of the ATDP scale were non-significant for all other occupational categories; Table 12 also indicates that there was a significant relationship between contact scores and intensity scores on both the progressive and traditional-attitude-toward-educa- tion scales for the SER and E groups. The correlations between contact and intensity scores on the educational attitude scales were non-significant for the M and L groups. 98 TABLE 12.--Zero-order correlations between contact and intensity scores on the attitude scales for the different occupational groups. ATDP Scale Education Scales Progressive Traditional r N r N r N SER group Fenlale -02h* 81 " .28 80 022* 81 TOtal " 019 102 e 22* 102 e 19 103 E group Male -.13 32 .25* 35 .20* Fmale 0001 59 020* 65 .28** 61+ Total -.06 91 .22. 100 .26; 99 M group Male .07 A9 ‘ -.12 23 .03 23 Fanale "001+ 18 '01“ 8 001 8 Total .07 67 . -.09 31 .05 31 1. group 9 Male -.10 A7 -.10 25 -.09 29 Fmale .13 30 012 25 .12 25 Total -.0003 77 -.Ol 50 -.02 50 * p (.05. 99 H-2a: High frequency of contact with disabled and blind persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding Opportunities, lb) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance. As indicated in Table 13, the multiple correlation relating to the combined contact variables and favorable- ness of attitudes toward handicapped persons is significant at the .005 level. As seen from Table 1A, enjoyment of con- tact when partialled out contributes most to the multiple correlation. Ease of avoidance and alternative rewarding' Opportunities when partialled out also contribute signifi- cantly to the multiple correlation. Table 13 also reveals that the multiple correlation relating to the combined con- tact variables and favorableness of attitudes toward blind persons is significant at the .005 level. Table 1A indicates that the contact variables referring to enjoyment and alter- native opportunities both contribute significantly to the multiple correlation. H-Za is supported. H-2b: Hi fre uency of contact with education, both pro- gressive and tragitional, will lead to favorable attitudes if hi fre uenc is concurrent with a alternative re- warding Opportunities, and (b) enjoyment of the contact. The multiple-correlation in Table 13 indicates that the correlations between both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education and.the combined contact variables 100 are statistically non-significant. Examination of Table 1A indicates that, although not significant, alternatives to contact contribute most to the multiple correlation, with respect to progressive attitudes toward education. Again, while not significant, alternative rewarding Oppor- tunities contribute most to the multiple correlation with respect to traditional educational attitudes. H-2b is not supported. TABLE 13.--Multiple correlations for combined contact variables with attitudes toward disabled per- sons, blind persons, and toward education (progressive and traditional) Variable N - 395 H. P. attitudes and combined . * contact variables .28 B. P. attitudes and combined * contact variables .25 Traditional Ed. attitudes and combined contact variables .07 Progressive Ed. attitudes and combined contact variables .02 *p < .005 101 TABLE lA.--Partial correlations between attitude-toward- disabled-persons, attitude-toward-blind-persons, 3. and attitude toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to contact variables. Handicapped Persons Scale (dependent) N - 396 Amount of contact , ‘ -.06 Avoidance Of contact -.l3** ‘Enjoyment of contact . - 20*** Alternatives to contact .11 ‘Blind Persons Scale (dependent) k N - 396 Amount of contact -.08 Avoidance of contact -.07 Enjoyment Of contact -.17*** Alternatives to contact ‘ .13** Progressive Educational Attitude (dependent) N - 396 Amount of contact, .000 Enjoyment of contact -.OCA Alternatives to contact ' .02 Traditional Educational Attitudes (dependent) N - 396 — —-—----—---------—--- ------- —-- . Amount Of contact ~ -.007 Enjoyment of contact -.02 Alternatives to contact . -.07 *p < ~05 _ ** 01 p e ***p .005 —‘-—_ 102 H-3a: Persons who score high in need for power and control ,pver others will tend to score lowpin acceptapge of disabled persons and blind persons specifically. The results presented in Tables 15 and 16 do not support the above stated hypothesis. There were no sig- nificant differences between high and low scores on Leader- ‘ship value and attitudes toward disabled persons and blind persons. H-3a is not confirmed. TABLE 15.--Means, standard deviations, and F statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes-toward-disabled-persons score. Variable N Mean of Standard 3, Sig ATDP1 Deviation of Scale 2 F; Low Leadership ' ' ' value scores 107 A5.6A A.79 .000A .93 High Leadership value scores 100 A5.66 5.01 Total 207 A5.65 A.89 1 Low scores indicate more favorable attitude. 103 TABLE 16.-eMeans, standard deviations, and 2 statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes-toward,blindppersons so or es . Variable N Mean of Standard E, Sig ATBP Deviation of Scale . E Low Leadership ‘ value scores 108 Al.37 6.32 .061 .79 High Leadership value scores 99 h1.56 6.7A Total 207 hloh9 6.51 H-3b: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes toward pducation. As indicated by Tables 17 and 18, there were no significant differencesbetween persons with high scores on Leadership value and persons with low scores on Leader- ship value as far as the progressive-attitude-tOward-educa- tion scores or traditional-attitude-toward-education scores were concerned. H-3b is not confirmed. 10A TABLE l7.-~Means, standard deviations, and 2 statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and progressive-attitude-toward- education scores. Variable ' N Mean of Standard 3 Progressive Deviation Scale Low Leadership . value scores 108 30.05 2.93 .12 High Leadership value scores 100 30.21 3.AA Total 208 30.13 3.18 __f TABLE 18. -éMeans, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores on the Leader- ship value and traditional-attitude-toward— education scores. Variable N Mean Of Standard F *Traditional Deviation ‘- Scale Si o Low Leadership ‘ .value scores 108 27.A1 2.69 -.08 High Leadership ‘ value scores 100 27.52 3.16 Total 208 27.A6 2.92 .77 105 H-Aa: Persons who score higp in need for recognition and ‘ achievement will tend to score low in acceptance of dip- abled persons and blind persons specifically. The results in Tables 19 and 20 do not support the above stated hypothesis. There were no significant dif- ferences between high and low scores on Recognition value and attitudes toward disabled persons and blind persons. H-Aa is not confirmed. TABLE 19.-~Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores Oh‘Recognition value and scores on the attitude-toward-disabled-persons scale. Variable N .Mean of Standard E, Sig ‘ ATDP 1 Deviation of Scale F Low Recognition .value scores 96 AA.86 5.61 2.11 .lA High Recognition value scores 81 A6.05 5.15 Total 177 45obl 5.h2 1Low scores indicate more favorable attitude. 106 TABLE 20.--Means, standard deviations, and 2 statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the attitude-toward- blind-persons scores. Variable N Mean of Standard F, Sig ' ATBP 1 Deviation of Scale 31‘ Low Recognition ' .value scores 97 - A1.39 6.56 .009 .89 High Recognition ‘ value scores 80 Al.29 6.51 T0331 177 #1034 6052 1Low scores indicate more favorable attitude. H-Ab: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score low in progressive attitudgp toward education and high in traditional attitudes toward (education scores. As presented in Tables 21 and 22, there were no significant differences between persons who scored high and those who scored low on Recognition value compared 'with either progressive or traditional attitudes toward education. H-Ab is not confirmed. 107 TABLE 21.-—Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores on 'Recognition value and scores on the progressive-attitude- toward-education scale. Variable N I Mean Of Standard §_ Sig Progressive Deviation of Scale ' E Low Recognition value scores _ 97 31.05 3.35 2.55 .11 High Recognition value scores 81 30.25 3.3A Total 178 30.68 3.36 TABLE 22.--Means, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the Traditional-attitude- toward-education scale. . Variable N Mean of Standard F Si Traditional Deviation " O Scale 3: Low Recognition ‘ ' value scales 97 27.A0 3.61 .06 .80 High Recognition ‘ ' value scores 81 27.52 2.71 TOW]. 178 27 0‘55 3 e23 108 H-Sa: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in acceptaggg of disabled persons and blind persons specifically. As indicated in Table 23, a significant difference was found between the means of those who scored high and those who scored low on Benevolence value when compared with scores on the ATDP scale. This difference was in the direc- tion of the hypothesis. Table 24 reveals there were no dif- ferences between the means of those who scored high and those who scored low on Benevolence value when compared to the scores on the ATBP scale. H-Sa is considered partially confirmed. ' . TABLE 23.-quans, standard deviations, and.§.statistic comparing high and low scores on the Benevolence value and scores on the attitude-toward-disabled- persons scale., Variable N Mean of Standard F Sig ATDP 1 Deviation of Scale 2 Low Benevolence value scores 98 46.04 5.02 t.l ' .05 High Benevolence . value scores 130 hh.67 5.05 Total I 228 h5.45 5.07 1Low scores indicate more favorable attitude 109 TABLE 2h.-quans, standard deviations, and F statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the attitude-toward- blindppersons scale. Variable N .Mean of Standard '3 Sig ATBP 1 Deviation of Scale . F Low Benevolence value scares 129 ,Al.37 6.hh .35 .56 High Benevolence .value scores 99 40.88 5.65 Total 228 al.16 6.10 1 Low scores indicate more favorable attitude. H-Sb: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in progressive atti- tudes toward education and low in traditional attitudes toward education. As indicated by Tables 25 and 26, there were no significant differences between persons who scored high and those who scored low on Benevolence value compared ‘with either progressive attitude or traditional-attitude- toward-education scores. H-Sb is not supported. 110 TABLE 25.--Means,-standard deviations, and E'statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the progressive-attitude- toward-education scale. Variable N Mean of Standard F Sig Progressive Deviation ~ of Scale E Low Benevolence ,value scores 130 ‘ 30.21 3.26 1.30 .25 High Benevolence ~ value scores - 99 30.70 3.03 Total 229 30.42 3.17 ThBLE 26.--Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude- toward-education scale. variable N ‘Mean of Standard ‘3 Si Traditional Deviation 0 Scale F Low Benevolence value scores 130 1 27.33 t 3.07 .29 .59 High Benevolence value scores 99 27.09 3.61 Total ' 229 27.23 3.31 111 H-fic: Women will score hi er than men in a the need to help others. (b) positive attitudes toward the disabled, Sc) progressive attitudes toward education, and (d) pos - pive attitudes toward blind persons. Table 27 indicates that women did have significantly higher Benevolence scores than did men as hypothesized. Women likewise had significantly lower scores on the atti- tudes-taward-disabled-persons scale (i.e., the lower the score the more positive the attitude) which was also in the direction of the hypothesis. Women also had a signif- icantly higher mean score on the progressive~attitude~ toward- education scale. Lastly, as hypothesized, women had significantly lower (more positive) scores on the attitudes-toward-blind-persons scale. ‘ Hypothesis So, all parts, is confirmed in that women did express a greater need to help others, as measured by the scores on the Benevolence scale, did express more pos- itive attitudes toward disabled persons, and blind persons, as measured by the ATDP and ATBP scales, and did express more progressive attitudes toward education, as measured by the PATE scale. 112 TABLE 27.-4Means, standard deviations, and E statistics for Benevolence value scores, ATDP scale scores, progressive-attitude-toward-educa- tion scale scores, and ATBP scale scores for males and females. Variable Sex N Mean Standard 3 Sig Deviation of Benevolence male 181 17.26 6.67 16.03 .005 female 207 ' 19.86 5.86 total 388 18.64 6.38 ATDP Scaie1 male 183 16.01 5.01 7.75 .01 female 209 64.58 5.32 total 392 65.26 5.22 Progressive male 183 30.16 3.63 6.05 .05 Attitudes female 210 30.85 3.11 Toward total 393 30.53 3.73 Education ATBP Scalel male 180 42.00 6.53 13.12 .005 female 209 39.76 5.63 total 389 10.79 6.16 1Low scores indicate more positive attitude 113 H-6a: Persons who score high on change orientation will also score high on positive attitudes toward handicapped persons and blind persons specifically. As indicated in Table 28, the multiple correlation between the change orientation variables and HP attitudes is significant at the .05 level. Table 29 reveals that variables referring to automation and to self change both contribute significantly to the multiple correlation. Table 28 likewise indicates that the multiple correlation between the change variables and BP attitudes is significant at the .005 level. Table 29 reveals that the variables re- ferring to automation and political leadership both contrib- ute significantly to the multiple correlation. H-6a confirmed. H-6b: fipppons who score high on change orientation will ,glpo score high_on progressive attitudes toward educatipp and low on traditional attitudes toward education. As presented in Table 28, the multiple correlation between change orientation variables and traditional educa- tion attitudes is significant at the .05 level. Table 29 shows that the variable refering to birth control prac- tices is the only variable contributing significantly to the multiple correlation. Table 28 also reveals that the multiple correlation between the change orientation vari- ables and progressive attitudes toward education is sig- 114 nificant at the .005 level. Table 29 indicates that the variables refering to health practices and child rearing practices both contribute significantly to the multiple correlation. H-6b is confirmed. TABLE 28.--Mu1tiple correlations of change orientation variables with attitudes-toward-disabled ' persons, toward blind persons, and toward education (progressive and traditional). Variable N - 396 H.P. attitude and change orientation ' .18* B.P. attitude and change orientation .22** Traditional Ed. attitude and change orientation .20*' Progressive Ed. attitude and change orientation .27** *P (905 M12 (.005 115 TABLE 29.-~Partial correlations between attitude-toward- disabled persons, toward blind persons, and toward education (both progressive and trad- itional) as related to change orientation variables. Handicapped Persons Scale (dependent) N - 396 Health practices -.03 Child rearing practices .03 Birth control practices -.04 Automation -.13** Political leadership - .01* Self change -.11 Blind Persons Scale (dependent) N — 396 Health practices -.07 Child rearing practices .05 Birth control practices .07 Automation -.l2: Political leadership .11 Self Change -.09 Traditional Ed. Attitudes (dependent) . N - 396 Health practices -.04 Child rearing practices -.08 Birth control practices .12** Automation -.08 Political leadership - -.00 Self change -.03 Progressive Ed. Attitudes (dependent) N - 396 Health practices .14** Child rearing practices .15** Birth contro practices -.OA Automation .09 Political leadership .03 Self change ' .06 . s: .05 "5 é .01 p 116 Summary of zero-order Ebrrelations tbetween attitudes and values Tables 30 and 31 summarize the relationship between attitudes and values. They show a significant relation- ship between negative attitudes toward handicapped persons, as measured by the ATDP scale, and the Support value for the male sample of the E group. A significant negative relationship existed between traditional educational atti- tudes and the Support value for the female sample of the SER group. A significant negative relationship also ex- isted between progressive educational attitudes and the Support value for the M group. A significant relationship existed between tradition- al educational attitudes and the Conformity value for the SER group. A significant negative relationship existed between progressive educational attitudes and the Conform- ity value for the L group. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis. There was a significant positive relationship between Recognition value and attitudes toward handicapped persons for the SER group. This relationship was not in the hypothesized direction. While thecorrelation was not significant, it is interesting to observe that the relationship between atti- tudes toward handicapped persons and the Benevolence value for the SER group was negative. This finding is in the 117 opposite direction of the hypothesis. Again, while not significant, the relationship between Benevolence value and progressive educational attitudes was positive which is in the direction of the hypothesis. A significant pos- .itive relationship also existed between Benevolence value and progressive educational attitudes for the M.group, and between Benevolence value and traditional educational attitudes for the female sample of the L group. For the L group, Leadership value correlated nega- tively with traditional educational attitudes for the female sample. 8.w a... no. a. messages o>aommoc museums“ mohoom as aw“: H mm moo. om mua.a mm moa.n ma Hma. mm sea. om wao.u Honda H: woo. as one. H4 mm~.n as and. as sac. as who. damask mm mma.n mm Oma.n mm moa.a mm bad. on saw. an awe. was: we. mm one. am Hod.u mm mua.s «w see. no umo. mm noa.n Hosea om ooa.u ow eHH.u om oae.n om oma. om «Ho.u ow odd. damask no sea. «6 mo~.- no «so. «6 «co. no see. no ooa.- odd: . a ma HNH.- mm sac. ma goo. no «no.. we sea. no man. Hoooa no Hma.n mo boa. no 4H0. no ~ma.u no awm. no «00. damask mm m3... 3 mam... an .30... mm nonm. mm 3a... mm 2.34. odds . ._ mm HOH ~HH.u Hoa 45H.» Hoa aoo.n Hoasnoom. Hoa “50.: Hoa moo. Haaoa on moH.a mu mma.» an ado. as odd. as Hoo.u on . mmo. damask mm coo. «N omm.- mm coo. «a sauce. . Nu con.- «m and. oaosq- . - . in New. 2 u z A z a z a z a z u masmnovmoq oosoaosoeom mocmumomoosH cowauswooom muwsuomsoo osHm> phoamsm msouu . mason m05Hm> HmsomhomuoucH mo m0>ham sophoo on» mam aucmanoov Hmnh< actives mGOHoMHOLhoo neth030hoNII.OM QAQosom monocsoqovsH sowpasmooom auwsuomsoo paommsm macho .oamom mosHm> HmcomaonhounH ho ho>hsm nonhoo on» cam Apcopcoov soflam030030hmzovumovspapom 0003000 meowumflohuoo h00h010houus.dn mamas H0.uv 0*» 3. v a... A ‘ .. a .mommwa oao.- «we. «no. mac.- ema.- and. 600.- «se.-..mom. aamnm.- one . ooo .a«-z.. . o 0 sl 0... o 30 somm.n emu. «mom. hnH.u mnm.n mum. 00~.i MNH stem: town mmo n00 Amwmzvm s o I 0 cl 5 am0.u 00H. «40.: mmo. «was: sad. 040.: 05a. sewn. #40m «00 H00 _ 0H :qm cops moan osMHIImmMm . came monm page one am 9 ohm some ohm 339833 62.33203 00:30:33.; :ofificmooom 323.209 283% §9G «.00000ul.am mqmE(l+5.73)>L(A5.29)>SERU+A.A9) lsER - Spec. se., Rehab E - Education L - Labor . M.- Managerial 2High-scores on the attitude-toward-disabled-persons scale refer to negative attitudes. The lower the score the A more positive (as measured by this scale) the attitudes toward disabled persons. H-7b: The SERpgroupwill have a lower mean attitude-toward- blind-persons score than will persons in other occupational categories. , Results in Table 33 indicate that both sex and group differences are statistically significant. The E group, how- ever, had the lowest mean score rather than the SER group as was hypothesized. The Duncan's Multiple Means Test indicates 123 that a significant difference exists between the M group and the E group, between the M group and the SER group, and between the M group and the L group. No other signif- icant differences were noted. Since the differences between sexes is significant, the reader is reminded of the interpre- tive caution outlined on p. 88. It is possible that the sex composition of the occupational groups contribute heavily to the obtained group differences. H-7b cannot be considered confirmed. ' TABLE 33.-Means, standard deviations, §_statistics and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for attitude- toward-blind-persons scores for the four occupational categories. Occupational Mean 1 Standard ' g, Sig of E Category N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER I 104‘ 10.17 5.67 10.15 4.01 .005 .01 3' ’-99 39.99 4.50 ‘ M 35 43.1.7 6.55 L 100 A0.18 7.10 Total 388 AO.85 6.15 Untested Ranking of Means: M(l.3 .h7)>L(L0.85)>SER(1.0.17)>E(39.99) Duncan's Test*: M-E, M-R, M-L ‘ 2High scores on the attitude-toward-blind-persons scale refer to negative attitudes. The lower the score, the more positive (as measured by this scale) the attitudes toward blind persons. ,3? (005 12h H-8: The SER group will have a higher mean score than will persons in other occupational categories in respect to the value of Benevolence. and lower mean scores in respect to the values of Leadership and Recognition. Table 34 indicates that no significant differences betweenthe occupational groups were found for Benevolence value. The mean rankings, however, were in the predicted direction. Sex differences were significant at the .005 level suggesting that Benevolence value is more related to sex than to occupational classification. H-8 for Benevo- lence value is confirmed directionally but not statistically. As_indicated by Table 35, neither sex nor group differ- ences were statistically significant with respect to Recogni- tion value. While not statistically significant, the mean rankings fall in the hypothesized direction. H-8 for Recog- nition value is likewise confirmed directionally but not statistically. ' Table 36 indicates that both sex and group differences are significant at the .005 level. The Duncan's Multiple Means test reveals that a significant difference exists be- tween the M.group and the SER group, between the M group and the E group, between the L group and the SER group, between the M group and the L group, and between the L group and the E group. No significant difference was found between the SER group and the E group. H-8 for Leadership value is con- sidered partially confirmed. ‘ 125 TABLE 36.-quans, standard deviations, and E'statistic for Benevolence value scores for the four occupa- tional groups. ' Occupational Mean Standard g Sig of E Category N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER 102 20.13 5.32 17.62 1.67 .005 .17 E ' 99 19.26 6.56 M 87 17.67 _ 6.32 L 99 17.39 6.96 Total 387 18.65 6.37 Untested Ranking of Means: SER(20.13)>E(19.26)>M(17.67)>L(17.39) __ TABLE 35.94Means, standard deviations, and E'statistic for Recognition value scores for the four occupa- tional groups Occupational Mean Standard 2, Sig of E Category N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER . 102 10.33 3.92 .85 .67 .36 .71 E 99 10.h9 A.A6 M. 87 10.83. A.A8 L 99 11.0A 5.12 Total 387 10.66 b.50 untested Ranking of Means: L(11.01.)>M(10.83)>E(10.l.9)>SER(10.33) .. lull.bl..InI-I.'p~lillrrv; .' 183g 126 TABLE 36.-~Means, standard deviations, £_statistics, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for Leadership value for the four occupational groups. Occupational Mean Standard E. Sig oflg Category N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER 102 10.08 6.A2 82.76 5.25 .005 .005 E . 99 10.27 6.A6 M 87 16.38 7.37 L ‘ 99 13.88 83.75 Total 387 12.52 7.72 Untested Ranking of’Means: M(l6.38)>L(13.88)>E(10.27)>SER(10.08) Duncan's Test*: Men, M-E, L-R, MpL, L-E *p < .05 H-9a: The SER group will have a higher mean score on progress- ive-attitude-toward-education than will persons in other occu- pational categories. Table 37 lists means, standard deviations, E statistics, and Duncan's analysis for progressive-attitude-toward-education scores according to occupational categories. Significant dif- ferences were found for both sex and occupational classifica- tions on this variable. The Duncan's Multiple Means Test re- veals that significant differences exist between the SER group and the L group, between the SER group and the M group, between the E group and the L group, and between the E group and the M.group. No significant_differences, however, were found be- tween the SER group and the E group. H-9a is considered par- tially confirmed. 127 TABLE 37.-4Means, standard deviations,,§ statistics and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for progressive— attitude-toward-education scores for the four occupational groups. Occugi‘tiOnal‘ Mean Standard 13, Sig of g: egory N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER ' lot 31.17 3.18 b.03 6.59 .05 .005 E 101 31.15 2.98 M 87 29.52 ' 3.69 L 100 30.0. 3.35 Total 392 30.51 3.36 Untested Ranking of Means: SER(31.17X>E(31.15)>L(30.0A)>M(29.52) Duncan's Test*: R-L, a-n, E-L, Eem *p (.05 H-9b: The SER group will have a lower mean score in traditional- attitude-toward-education scores than will persons in other occupational categories. Table 38 indicates a significant difference between the means of the four occupational groups. The Duncan's Multiple Means Test reveals that significant differences exist between the M group and the SER grasp, between the M group and the B group, between the L group and the SER group, and between the M.group and the L group. No significant difference was found between the SER group and the E group. The ranking of the means, however, was in the predicted direction. H-9b is partially confirmed. 128 TABLE 38.-Means, standard deviations, E statistics, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test for traditional- attitude-toward-education scores for the four occupational groups. Occupational Mean Standard 2, Sig of,§ Category . N Score Deviation sex group sex group SER - 105 26.51 2.73 1.76 8.51 .18 .005 E 101 26.9A 3.79 . M. 87 28.80 ' 3.00 L 100 27.54 2.86 . Total 393 27.39 3.22 Untested Ranking of Means: M(28.80)>L(27.54)>E(26.9A)>SER(26.51) ’ Duncan's Test*: M-R, M-E, L-R, M-L I°‘p E(3.58)> L(3.h5)>M(3.27) Duncan's Test“: R-M, E-M Child SER 105 2.98 .77 .35 1.03 .56 .38 Rearing E 101 2.98 .77 Practices M 87 2.86 .82 L 99 2.82 .82 Total 392 2.91 .80 Untested Ranking of Means: SER(2.98)>E(2.98)>M(2.86)> L(2.82) Birth SER - 105 1.63 .67 5.05 1.89 .03 .13 , Control ‘ E 100 1.60 .67 Practices M 87 1 .61. .68 L 100 1.75 .78 0 Untested Ranking of Means: L(1.75)> M(l.6l.)> SER(1.63)>E(1.60) Automation SER 105 3.23 .72 .28 1.29 .60 .28 E 101 3.39 .71 M 87 3.21 .82 L 100 3.18 .88 Tom]. 393 .25 078 Untested Ranking of Means: E(3.39)> SER(3.23)> M(3.21)> L(3.18) *p (.05 130 Table 39 also indicates that the L group had the highest mean score on the birth control variable. This finding was in the direction of the hypothesis. Likewise the E group had the highest mean score on the change variable related to automation. This finding was contrary to the hypothesis. (The only variable on which H-10 can be considered partially confirmed is in the case of health practices. This variable was in the direction of the hypothesis in that the SER group had the highest mean score. H-ll: The SER group will have higher mean scores than other occupatipnal groups on the amount of contact with Mentally Retarded and Emotionally Disturbed Persons. As indicated by Table 40, the SER group did have, as predicted, higher mean scores than did the other occu- pational groups on the amount of contact with mentally retarded.and,§motionally glppppppg persons. The Duncan's Test indicates that significant differences exist between the SER group and all the otheroccupational categories, on both MR and EDP contact. H-ll is considered confirmed in full. . A 131 TABLE AO.--Means, standard deviations, F statistics, and Duncan's Multiple Means Test related to contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons for the four occupational groups. Variable Group N Mean Standard 3, Sig ofIF Score Deviation sex group sex group Contacts SER‘ _ 101 b.38 .99 20.10 88.05 .005 .005 Mentally E 101 2.33 1.A0 Retarded M. 85 2.10 1.13 Persons L 9100 1.8A ‘ 1.06 Total 387 2.69 1.52 Untested Ranking of Means: SER(A.38)> E(2.33)> M(2.10)> 141.81.) Duncan's Test‘: R-L, RAM, R-E Contacts - ' Emotionally SE 101 2.9a 1.44 8.97 16.11 .005 .005 Disturbed E 101 2.11 1.31 Persons M 85 2.20 1.37 L 100 1.59 .98 Tatal 387 2.17 1 .37 Untested Ranking of Means: SER(2.9I+)> 3(2.11)> M(2.02)> L(1.59) Duncan's Test*: R-L, R4M, R-E *p < 005 132 ,Qifferences between the various occupational groups on mean scores on t e vs ue su scales Three of the value subscales were considered in the testing of hypotheses: those of Benevolence, Recognition, and Leadership. Values of support, Conformity, and Independence have yet to be considered. Table A1 summarizes the latter three differences. While statistically significant differen- ces were found on the Support and Independence value scores, ' these differences were not in the direction which would be con- sistent with the general theoretical model of this Study. No significant differences were noted on Conformity value, although the SER group had the highest mean score on this value, a find- ing also inconsistent with the theoretical orientation of the study. The SER group was lower on mean scores for the Support value than the E group and had the lowest mean score on the Independence value. 133 TABLE 41.--Means, standard deviations, E statistics, and Duncan's Multiple.Means Test related to three value variables. for the four occupational groups. Variable Group N Mean Standard l? Sig of E Score Deviation sex group sex group Support ,SER 102 17.68' 6.61 37.41 7.11 .005 .005 Value E 99 18.14 A.A3 M 87 13.64 . 5.21 L 99 15.63 6.00 Total 387 16.31 5 .35 Untested Ranking of Means: E(18.1A)>>SER(17.48)>'L(l5.63)>>M(13.6A) Duncan's Test*: E-M, E-L, R-M, R-L, L-M ' Conformity SER 102 15.3A 6.55 10.10 1.10 .005 .35 Value E 99 1A.98 6.22 M. 87 15.08 6.19 L 99 13.50 6.68 Total 387 1h.72 AA 6. SER(15.3A)>>M(15.08)>>E(1A.98)>1L(13.50) Untested Ranking of Means: Inde endence SER 102 15082 6001} 1.19 2.56 .28 .05 Va ue E 99 16.01 6. O M. 87 16.73 9.77 L 99 18.58 6.78 Total 387 16 78 7e . . 0 Untested Ranking of Means: L(18.58)> M 16.73)> E(16.01)> SER(15.82) Duncan's Test*: L-R, L-E - *P < 005 131. 11-12: gpppgns whose primagy eXperience has been at the ‘glementary level will hold more positive attitudes toward physically handicapped and blind persons than will persons whose primary experience has been at other levels of educa- tion or thoge persona with no primary educational experience. As indicated by Tables 12 and 43, no statistically significant differences were found between educational contact groups on either attitudes-toward-disabled-persons or attitudes-toward-blindepersons scores. While not sig- nificant, the ranking of means for both attitudes was in ‘the direction predicted by the hypothesis. H-12 is con- firmed directionally but not statistically. TABLE 12.-4Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic for attitudes-towsrd-disabled-persons scores for the primary educational contact groups. Ed Contact Group N Mean Standard 3 Sig of g ’ Score Deviation Elementary 158 1.6.95 l..92 1.11. .33 Secondary 63 115.21» 5.05 University 1.0 1.6.60 6.03 None 89 £15.61 5.1.9 Total 350 £15.36 5.23 Untested Ranking of Means: U(1.6.60)> N(1.5.61)> S(1.5.21.)>E(1.1..95) unfilflmmlnrl).»ulll.3. . a , . 1 Pin 135 TABLE 43.-quans, standard deviations, and §_statistic for attitudes-toward-blind-persons scores for the primary educational contact groups. '— Ed Contact Group N Mean Standard 1: Sig of E Score Deviation Elementary 160 41.09 5.97 .14 .74 Secondary 61 41.77 6.13 University 40 42.15 5.13 None 89 41.38 6.69 Total 350 41.40 6.09 Untested Ranking of Means: U(42.15)> SEC(41.77)>N(41.38)>E(4l.09) *1 H—l3: Pgrsppiwho have had_primary contact with the blind vs other types of physlpally handicapped individuals will hold.more pgsitive attitudes toward the blind. Table 44 indicates that no statistically significant differences exist between the primary contact groups on attitudes-toward-blind-persons scores. Again, as in the previous hypothesis, while not statistically significant, the ranking of the means was in the direction predicted by the hypothesis. H-13 is therefore confirmed direction- ally, but not statistically. 136 TABLE 44.-quans, standard deviations, and F statistic for attitudes-toward-blind-persons scores for pri- mary handicapped persons contact groups. W B.P. Contact Group N Mean Standard §_ Sig of E Score Deviation IBlind Persons 33 39.97 6.08 2.05 .13 No Contact 54 42.66 6.96 ‘Total 393 41.34 6.25 Untested Ranking of Means: N(42.66) >0(1.1.25) >BP(39.97) CHAPTER V SUMViARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter is divided into three major sections suggested by the chapter title. Part I will be a summary of the theoretical and methodological issues. Under the latter heading, there will be a summary of hypotheses con- struction, technical problems, sample, instruments, and analyses procedures. Part II will be devoted to a discussion of hypoth- es es testing. Hypotheses 1-6 compare high and low scores of the major variables of the study on the total p0pulation. Hypotheses 7-11 compare the SER group with other occupational groups on the major variables. Hypotheses 12-13 deal with the relationship between various types of primary contact and attitudes toward physical disability as a unitary con- Cept versus blindness as a specific disability. The final portion of the chapter, Part III, will deal With recommendations, the hypotheses, the instruments, the sample, and the analyses procedures. 138 Part I: §ummary of the Theoretical and Methodological—Issues In.the introductory chapter, a statement was made to the effect that the main focus of the study would be the assessment of attitudes toward the physically handi- capped and education held by certain occupational groups. The relationship between interpersonal values, personal contact, attitudes, and certain demographic variables also were to be a focus of investigation. The assumption was made that both values and cmtact serve as determinants of attitudes. A last emphasis was to investigate the rel- ative position of the visually handicapped person in con- trast to other types of physical handicaps. §gm§§ry of Theory Kerlinger' s theoretical model was used to study atti- tudes toward education. He postulates a basic dichotomy which consists of a restrictive-traditional or permissive- progressive dimension of educational attitudes. He further suggests that the sharpness of the dichotomy is dependent ‘upon occupational role, knowledge of‘and experience with education as well as the perceived importance of education (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). The present research is based ' on Kerlinger's assumption that the progressive-traditional dimension oanttitudes toward education generalize to atti- tudes in other areas. 139 The theoretical framework of the present research is generally consistent with the social-psychological orientation of Wright (1961) and Meyerson (1955, 1963) as far as attitudes toward physical disability are con- cerned. While their interactional prepositions included such concepts as self, other, reference groups, and role, .the main focus of this study had to do with attitudes and ‘/ 1513323 as they relate to phys ical disability and to educa- tion. I y The theoretical positions of Cutsfordn (1951), Cholden (1958) and Braverman (1950) suggest that blind- ness is regarded by most persons as the most severe and debilitating physical handicap that an individual can incur. ' These authors emphasize the deep psychological and psychiat- ric implications of visual disability. This orientation served as a basis for the generation of hypotheses concern- ing the blind. Rosenberg (1960), Katz (1960), Guttman and Foa (1951), and others have postulated certain relationships between attitudes and values. Katz points out that people are gen- erally more inclined to change or give up attitudes incon- fsistent or unrelated to central values. From this orien- tation, there would be an.expected consistency between the basic value of equality and the more specific attitude of favorableness toward opportunities for disabled persons and toward progressive education since the latter stresses in; dividual participation and the inherent assets of the person. 1&0 With reference to physical disability, Wright, et a1., (1960) points out that values can be clustered 'according to whether they are derived from (a) comparison; or from (b) intrinsic assets. One of the assumptions of the study was that the SER group would view disabled persons from.more of an asset value orientation than would other oc- cupational groups. A logical extension of this assumption was that the postulated asset value orientation of the SER group would generalize to favorable progressive-attitudes- toward-education as well as favorable attitudes toward change orientation as measured by the indices of the study. Guttman and Foa (1951) have shown that attitude in- tensity is related to the amount of social contact with the attitude object. Zetterberg (1963) observed that attitude intensity on the favorable-unfavorable continuum is related _to perceived freedom or constraint of social interaction and whether this interaction is perceived as rewarding. Attempts were made to test interaction between contact fre- quency and the related contact indices of enjoyment of the contact and ease of avoidance of it. Summary of Hypothesis Construction Several of the hypotheses were originally constructed by Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) and utilized in their studies. As a result of their recommendations, attitudes - toward education (both progressive and traditional) as well 1hl as attitudes toward toward disabled persons were included. Also due to their suggestions, the change variables (H-6, H-lO) were included. H-ll was an extension of the contact variables as applied to frequency of contact with emotion- ally disturbed and mentally retarded persons. Rosenberg, Guttman, Foa, and Zetterberg have sugges- ted that frequency of contact is directly related to atti- tude intensity regardless of content direction. H-1 and H-2 were aimed at testing this assumption. H-3 through H-5 were aimed at testing the assumptions of Wright, et a1. (1960) which posit there will be a differ- ential evaluation of others between those who hold.a§§g§ oriented values and those who hold comparative oriented values. The assumptions of H-6 postulate a relationship between progressive educational attitudes and change orien- tation, as well as an asset orientation toward others. H-7 through H-ll were derived from the assumption 'that persons working in the area of special education and rehabilitation would.have more progressive attitudes toward education; be more change oriented; and have more expressed .asset oriented values than would other occupational groups. ~ It was also assumed that educational attitudes, whether progressive or traditional, would.generalize to other areas. 1b2 H-12 was generated from the assumption that persons with primary contact at the elementary level will be pre- disposed to more child-centered (i.e., asset-minded) orien-~ tations with respect to children. H-13 is an extension of the previous contact hypoth-' esis (H-1 and H-2) with specific reference to the visually ‘handicapped. C Technical Problems The length of the test battery proved to be the only significant technical problem in the collection of the data. Average respondent time for completion of the battery was approximately one and one-half hours. This problem was particularly evident for the managerial and labor occupational samples. The two education groups were secured primarily in graduate university classroom settings, and, to a certain extent, represented "captive" populations. Once the researcher had obtained the intel- lectual support of the university instructor, there were few further problems related to the availability of time. There were some minor complaints from these education re- spondents, who resented the interference with their regu- -lar academic programs. Adequate explanation of the purpo- ses and the possible usefulness of the study, generally was quite effective in satisfying their reservations con- cerning the expenditure of their time and effort. 1&3 -0n the other hand, the managerial and labor occupa- tional groups constituted anything but a "captive" pOpula- ' tion. Repondents in these occupational classifications had to be scheduled either individually or, more commonly, in small groups. Meetings of community service organiza- tions such as the Lions International, Rotarians, the Optimists, the Kiwanians, the YOung Businessmen's Associa- tion, the 20-30 Club, etc., provide one of the only oppor- tunities when individuals from the managerial and labor groups naturally come together in reasonable sized groups. Enlisting the support of these organization's offi- cers was not generally difficult. However, getting the cooperation of the membership frequently proved quite the apposite. Regularly scheduled meetings of these organizations are usually held in the evening and consist normally of a dinner, a business discussion, an entertainment program, or a guest speaker, who politely limits his offering to no more than thirty minutes. Considerable reticence was evi- ‘denced by members upon having a one to two hour test thrust at them unexpectedly by a stranger who felt impelled to make his explanation as brief as possible because of the time factor. Even when two consecutive meetings were provided by the organization: the first for explanation and discus- sion of the research study; and the second for the actual. lhh administration of the battery, membership reluctance was far from dispelled. Indeed, experience demonstrated that attendance at the second meeting was invariably well below normal. I ‘ Additionally, many individuals who "took" the battery, merely read it through for thirty to forty-five minutes and turned it in either completely unanswered or with so few responses that it could not be utilized for research purpo- ses. In order to secure the-final sample of 185 respondents in the.M and L groups, it was necessary to "administer" the battery to over 250 subjects. In many respects, the prOblem of battery length is not susceptible to remediation. The data requirements plus the theoretical bases of the study dictate battery length. Readers and subsequent researchers in this area should, however, be cognizant of the problems related to the time required to complete the battery. Instruments The major variables of the study might be summarized as follows: attitudes toward education, physical disability, and blindness as they are influenced by 15122;, contact, and related.gemographic indicesI The Attitudes Toward Education Scale developed by Kerlinger, (Kerlinger 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaye, 1959) was used to measure both progressive and traditional atti-. 1&5 tudes toward education. A relationship between progressive- attitude-toward-eduoation and positive attitudes toward physical disability was hypothesized. The hypotheses relating to attitudes-toward-handi- capped-persons was instrumented by the Attitude Toward Dis- ability Scale developed by Yuker and associates (1960). The hypotheses relating to attitudes-towardpblind— persons were instrumented by the Attitudes Toward Blindness . Scale deve10ped by Cowen and associates (1958). The Kerlinger, ther and Cowen scales were all modie fied with a Likert-type intensity statement. This state- ment, containing four response alternatives, asked the re- spondent to indicate how strongly (i.e., sure) he felt about his answer to-the content statements of the three scales. Asset and comparative value orientations were mea- sured by three sub-scales of the Gordon Survey of Interper- sonal Values. Asset value orientation toward others was measured by the sub-scale of Benevolence which Gordon (1963, p. 3) describes as "Doing things for oflher people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being gener- ous". Comparative value orientation toward others was measured by Recognition value described by Gordon (1963, p. 3) as "Being looked up to and admired, being considered important,-attracting favorable notice, achieving recogni- tion", and by Leadership value which Gordon (1963, p. 3) defines as "Being in charge of others, having authority- 1L6 over others, being in a position of leadership and power". The contact frequency variable was modified by: ' enjoyment of contact, ease of avoidance of contact, and acceptable alternatives to contact for education, physical disability, and blindness. Change orientation questions and demographic variables were also included in the personal questionnaire. Sample The four occupational groups in this Kansas sample consisted of 391 adults including 182 males and 209 females. The groups were represented as follows: The SER group had A an N of 105 (22 males and 83 females); the E group had an N of 101 (36 males and 65 females); the M group had an N of 87 (67 males and 20 females); and the L group had an N of 100 (59 males and 1.1 females). Inspection of the occu- pational breakdown reveals the sex-linked characteristics of’the categories. Note, for example, the preponderance of’females in the two education groups and the overwhelming xnajority of males in the M and L occupational groups. The interpretive difficulties arising from the dif- ferences in the number of male and female respondents as well as the differences in the number of respondents in the occupational groups are dealt with in the following sections of this chapter . 1&7 Summer of statistical procedures Two frequency programs, designated as FCC I and FCC II, were used to compile the frequency distributions of each respondent for every item. . The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statis- tics. The program was designed to handle unequal frequen- ' cies occurring in the various categories. The analysis of covariance routine (Ruble, Paulson, Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate the two-way analyses of variance. This pro- gram was likewise designed to handle unequal frequencies occurring in the different categories. In addition to the analysis of variance and covariance tables, the frequency, sum, mean, standard deviation, sum of squares, and the sum of squared deviations of the mean were included for each category. The approximate significance probability of the 2 statistic was also automatically printed out by the computer. Zero-order correlations were obtained between all variables. Partial correlations, one of the outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC 3600 program (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966), were likewise computed. These programs have been written to handle missing data in such a way that correlations are based only on respondents who answered the indicated items. The use of partial cor- relations was indicated so that the effects of all variables except the predictor could be held constant. 1&8 Several multiple regression analyses were also done. Since this specific computer program did not handle missing data, persons having missing data were drOpped from the analysis. Part II: Discussion of Hypotheses H ypo_t_h_eses relating to contact re uenc an Intensity (3:2) Tables 9-11 indicate that the mean intensity scores on the attitude scales were not significantly different 1 between those who indicated high frequency of contact and those who indicated low frequency of contact with handi- capped persons and/or education. Approximately one-fourth of the sample who indicated the most contact with disabled persons and/or education were placed in the high frequency contact group while approximately one-fourth of those who indicated the least amount of contact with these two groups .were included in the low frequency contact group. Roughly the middle half of the sample, who indicated an average number of contacts with disabled persons and/or education, were omitted from the analysis. Table 9 indicates that the mean difference of the high and low contact frequency groups were not significantly different. ~Apparently, in- tensity was not differentially a function of the number of contacts with either group as far as the attitude instru- ments were concerned. 1&9 0n the other hand, Table 12 indicates that signifi- cant relationships do exist between ATDP intensity and con- .tact scores for the SER group when viewed correlationally. A negative correlation between ATDP intensity and contact was significant at the .05 level for the SER group. This obtained negative relationship is of particular interest. Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) report similar find- ‘ ings with respect to the relationship between contact and intensity scores. Felty's interpretation would appear to be highly relevant here. One possible interpretation is that within a setting where peOple are occupationally involved with handi- capped persons there is a tendency for peOple to be- come less favorably disposed toward them as they are more frequently involved with them. A possible theo- retical support of this point of view is related to Allport's observations regarding the formation of negative attitudes when contact is with persons who are perceived as being inferior.... Another point of view, however, is that the attitude instruments may be measuring only a limited portion of the attitude universe related to handicapped per- sons. A number of ATDP items would appear to reflect somewhat stereotyped statements about handicapped per- sons, so that an individual with a direct and prolong- ed working relationship with handicapped persons might appear less accepting on a "stereotype" level and have more difficulty responding than someone whose relation- shi s were less frequent and perhaps more superficial (Fe W. 1965, p. 170). In conjunction with Felty's statement above, it is the writer's impression, based on administrative and super- visory experience in an institution for severely handicapped children, that professional staff members frequently protect themselves from internalizing the problems of their students by adapting an attitude of cynicism or impersonalism. 150 It is reasonable to conclude that the respondents indicating high frequency of contact with handicapped per- sons in Table 9 are from the SER group. Granting this assumption, Felty's (1965) previously reported observations and the writer's personal impressions of workers in the SER group might well be applicable with respect to the contact- intensity findings. The obtained non-significant relationship between contact and ATDP intensity for the M group is of interest. The managerial group, in view of their leadership capacity in industry, business, military service, etc., would seem to place particular value on health, energy, and general physical capability. At the same time, physical disability would pose severe threats to the maintenance of leadership positions. The author's personal experience in working with adult stroke and subsequently aphasic individuals sub- stantiates this contention. Those stroke victims who had . held professional positions of leadership and responsibility prior to their CVA's were least able to accept their handi- cap and their new roles in life. _ Tables 10 and 11 indicate there were no significant differences on mean intensity scores on both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education when compared 'with high and low frequency of contact. Table 12, however, indicates there were significant relationdhips between contact and intensity when viewed 151 correlationally for the SER and E groups. Table 12 reveals that significant positive correlations were found between contact and intensity for both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. These correlations were sig- nificant at the .05 level for both the SER and E occupa- tional groups. The fact that the SER and E groups have significant positive correlations between contact and intensity on both progressive and traditional educational attitudes may have several possible explanations. One explanation, for example, might be that the SER and E occupational groups may have verbalized democratic progressive educational ideals, and yet, at the same time, held to a basic tradi- tional orientation without being aware of the existing dis- crepancy. It may also be that persons holding strong pro- gressive educational attitudes and those holding strong traditional educational attitudes.are similarly represent- ed in the sample. Friesen's (1966) observations may also be valid with respect to the above findings. It may also be that the significant correlation between contact and intensity on the attitude scales is simply a function of a reasonably large N. Legitimate ques- tions can be raised to the appropriateness of the stat- istic used. Future studies should attempt to explore, for example whether this kind of relationship is lin- ear or curvilinear and better anaégzed by some other statistical method. (Friesen, 19 , p. 226) 152 Cpntact variables and pheir relationship to favorable attitudes [H-2) Table 13 indicates a significant correlational re- lationship between the combined contact variables and fav- orable attitudes toward handicapped persons and blind per- sons. ' Table 1A reveals that for attitudes toward handi- capped persons, enjoyment of contact, When partialled out, contributes most to the significant mutiple correlation. It was also noted that ease of avoidance and the availability of alternatives contribute significantly to the correlation. Table la likewise indicates that for attitude toward blind persons, enjoyment of the contact contributes most to the multiple correlation. Alternatives to contact also con- tributed significantly to the obtained relationship. Table 13 indicates that the multiple correlations between both progressive and traditional educational atti- tudes and the combined contact variables were not statis- tically significant. While not significant, Table 1h sug- gests that the availability of alternative action contrib- utes differentially most to the multiple correlations for both educational attitudes. 153 Value variables in relation to atti- pges‘ma to H-S) Examination of Tables 15 through 26 indicates that with the exception of Benevolence value scores and ATDP scores, none of the relationships between value orienta- tions and attitudes toward handicapped persons, blind per- sons, or progressive and traditional educational attitudes were significant. Many of the obtained relationships were also directionally contrary to the hypotheses. These find- ings were, in general, similar to both Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) who likewise obtained few significant re- sults with respect to the relationships between value ori- entation and attitudes in their cross-national research studies. Friesen (1966) raises the question of the reliability and validity of the instruments in settings where concept equivalence is questionable. His reference here pertains to the use of the instruments in a different cultural envir- onment than the one in which they were developed. The essen- tially negative results in the present study, however, raises the additional question of the general reliability and validity of the instruments irrespective of the cultur- al setting. Another interpretation is the conclusion that attitudes toward disabled persons, blind persons, and pro- gressive-traditional educational attitudes are not necessar- ily instrumental to the maintenance of certain specified interpersonal values. 15h Table 27 indicates that, as hypothesized, the re- lationship between value orientation and attitudes toward handicapped persons, blind persons, and progressive and traditional educational attitudes was significant in all cases with respect to the sex of the respondent. Recog- nizing the sex-linked characteristics of the occupational categories and the unequal distribution of males and fe- males in the sample, one might speculate that differences obtained on attitude scores may be more related to the sex of the respondent than to a particular value orien- tation. Attitude scores as related to cEanEe variafiies (H-§) As seen from Table 28, the multiple correlation be- tween the change variables and.attitudes toward handicapped persons, blind persons, and progressive-traditional educa- tional attitudes was statistically significant in each case. Table 29 reveals that the change variables refer- ring to automation and self change, when partialled out, Inade a significant negative contribution to the multi- ple correlation with attitudes toward disabled persons. It might be posited that automation is in the direction of impersonalized relationships and, as such, is inconsis- tent with the felt needs of peOple expressing positive attitudes toward handicapped persons. The personal exper- ience of the writer has demonstrated that persons expres-' sing a desire to work with the handicapped are generally individuals with a high need for personal contact. 155 Table 29 likewise indicates that the change vari- able of automation, when partialled out, contributes sig- nificantly in a negative direction to the multiple corre-' lation with attitudes toward blind persons. The discus- sion of the automation variable above with respect to ATDP scores would also be applicable here. With regard to traditional educational attitudes, Table 29 indicates that the change variable related to birth control practices madea significant positive con- tribution to the mutiple correlation. This positive finding is in the predicted direction. While not signif- icant, all of the other change variables are negatively correlated to traditional attitudes toward education as would be predicted by the hypothesis. It would appear that , this particular change variable has definite religious affil- iation implications. Opinions of respondents concerning birth control practices may then reflect the felt importance of or the need to adhere to religion rather than constitute a criterion along a progressive-traditional dimension. Table 29 also reveals that the change orientation variables relating to health and child rearing practices made a significant positive contribution to the multiple correlation with respect to progressive educational atti- tudes. This finding is in the hypothesized direction and is consistent with the theoretical orientation of the study. Persons whose attitudes toward education are progressive 156 ‘would be expected to be receptive to discoveries leading to improved health measures and willing to attempt new techniques with respect to raising children. Hypotheses related to characteristics 0 persons working directly With disabled ersons W Table 32 reveals that the hypothesis concerning the SER group with reference to scores on the handicapped persons scale could not be confirmed. While the differ- ences between the occupational groups were not statistically significant, ranking of mean scores was in the predicted direction. Sex differences, however, were significant at the .01 level. Table 33 indicates that while statistically signif- icant differences exist between the occupational categor- ies with respect to scores on the attitude-toward-blind- persohs scale, these differences were not in the predicted direction. The B group obtained the lowest mean score rather than the SER group as hypothesized. The Duncan's analysis, however, reveals that no significant differences exist between these two groups. Differences between the SER and E groups will be discussed in a subsequent section. Sex differences on attitudes-toward-blind-persons were significant at the .005 level. ‘ With regard to the value scales and the SER group, Tables 3h through 36 indicate that significant group dif- ferences were found only for the Leadership value. While 157 not statistically significant, mean rankings for both Benevolence and Recognition values were in the hypothe- sized direction. Sex differences for Benevolence value were significant at the .005 level. Table 36 indicates that group differences for Leadership value were statistically significant. The Duncan's analysis reveals that although significant dif- ferences exist between the SER and the M and L groups, no significant differences were found between the SER and E groups. Sex differences for Leadership value were sig- nificant at the .005 level. As indicated by Tables 37 and 38, significant group differences were found for both progressive and tradition- al attitudes toward education. 'These differences were in the direction predicted by the hypotheses. Results of the Duncan's analysis reveal that significant differences exist between the SER group and the M and L groups, but that no differences exist between the SER and E groups. Sex differences on both education variables were statis- tically significant Results of the zero—order correlations between attitudes and values for the occupational categories found in Tables 30 and 31 are not clear-cut. The corre- lations, however, are generally in the direction consis- tent with hypotheses. These results are summarized on pages 116-117. 158 With respect to the change variables, Table 39 indicates that significant differences between the occu- pational groups were found only on the variable related to health practices. The ranking of the means was in the predicted direction, however, the Duncan's analysis reveals that the SER and E groups were not significantly different from one another. ‘The only other variable on which the ranking of the means was in the hypothesized direction was on the variable related to child rearing practices. . Table to indicates that significant differences, with respect to the amount of contact with mentally re- tarded and emotionally disturbed persons, exist between the occupational categories. The Duncan's analysis re- veals that the scores of the SER group are significantly different from all other occupational groups.' The re- sults so clearly support the hypothesis that little further interpretation appears necessary. Hypotheses relating to rimar educational and fig? contact (H-I2, H-IE) As indicated by Tables 42 and #3, the hypothesis concerning primary educational contact group and attitudes toward handicapped persons and blind persons could.not be‘ confirmed. Differences between groups on both attitude variables were statistically non-significant. In both instances, however, the ranking of means fell in the 159 direction predicted by the hypothesis. While direction— al confirmation, in contrast to statistical, is not acceptable for research purposes, the results strongly suggest that the hypothesized group differences might be extractable with more sensitive instrumentation. In both instances, the elementary and secondary groups ranked one and two on the attitude variables. Table 4h indicates that the hypothesized relation- ship between the primary handicapped persons contact group and attitudes toward the blind was not confirmed. Again, the hypothesis was confirmed directionally but not statistically in that mean ranking was in the pre- dicted direction. It is interesting to note that all the hypotheses. regarding the SER group and primary handicapped persons group with respect to attitudes-toward-blind-persons and attitudes-toward-handicapped-persons were not confirmed statistically. At least one possible explanation for these findings appears plausible. Examination of the ATDP and ATBP scales reveals that scale items refer gen- erally to a rather simplistic acceptance-rejection dimen- sion. Items such as ATDP #2 are a good example: "Physic- ally handicapped persons are just as intelligent as non- handicapped ones." A "strongly agree" response would in- dicate simple positive attitude. The person working in SER, however, would be aware from his academic prepara- ‘tion, that mental retardation and physical handicaps 160 frequently occur concurrently. The SER respondent might then answer, "disagree".‘ Can we say that, for this question, his attitudinal position is less positive? Certainly the respondent is operating on the basis of greater understanding and knowledge, i.e., his response to a supposedly simple item is highly complex. I ' A similar analysis can be made with respect to certain items on the ATBP scale. Item #17 referring. to personality deve10pment in the blind is a good exam- ple. Again, a simplistic positive analysis would result in a "strongly agree" response. The individual who has trained and worked in the area of blindness, however, . is well aware that personality deve10pment is inevitably affected by the presence of the visual handicap. Cuts- forth (1950) in effect, says that while it is theoretic- ally possible for the blind individual to demonstrate entirely wholesome personality development, such a per- son is rarely, if ever, encountered in a clinical situa- tion. Cholden (1958) emphasizes the psychiatric implica- tions of blindness and describes at length the personality problems encountered in adventitiously blinded individuals. Would the SER worker, who responded on the basis of these understandings, be expressing a less positive attitude toward the blind or has the scale item not sufficiently 'discriminated his response? The writer of the present research feels that the latter possibility is more likely. 161 Part III: Recommendations Recommendations relating to sampling As was indicated earlier in the present chapter, little difference was found between the scores "of the SER group and the B group on the majority of variables tested. This finding is similar to Friesen's (1966) results. In a runnber of important reapects, it may not be justified to assume that the SER and E samples constitute separate and discrete groups, at least in the United States. In the present study, the majority of the SER group 'were special education classroom teachers rather than voca- tional rehabilitation counselors, and, as such, they share reciprocally many common goals and experiences with the E group.l Teacher training programs in the United States contain many common academic and clinical experiences for regular and special education teachers. Most programs re- quire, for example, that prospective special educators must also take the academic coursework leading to regular education certification. In addition, more and more teacher tnaining pregrams are requiring that all teachers include :hltheir academic programs at least the introductory survey dfspecial education, thereby providing common basic under- standings between the SER and E groups. Still another consideration is the fact that many, if not most, teachers in special education are "retreads" orteachers who have switched to special classes from 162 regular classes. Many of the teachers included in the pres- ent study under the SER Classification were at one time, teachers in regular classes. Since they had taken the required academic training and had been certified as Special class teachers they legitimately qualified for inclusion in the SER sample. This type of dual background, however, does "muddy the water" to an extent and makes interpreta- tion of the research results somewhat tenuous. A last factor affecting background experience, although not strictly limited to the SER and E groups, is the con- siderable national emphasis which special education and rehabilitation have received in the United States in recent years. Several recent presidents have given their support to such programs and the amount of favorable legislation at all levels of government has been considerable. A great deal of energy has been devoted to articulating this concern for the handicapped through the mass media. Television, for example, has been used extensively to improve the employ- ment position of the handicapped worker. Labor unions and managerial personnel in industry are presently demonstrating increasing interest in the handicapped. The general dissemination of information has provided many common under- standings for all occupational groups in the United States. A number of additional factors may be cited as limit- ing the representative nature of the present sample. First, 163 majority of reapondents in the M and L groups were active >ers of various local service organizations. It is con- vable that persons feeling the need to participate in munity activity may view the physically handicapped and ication differently than persons without the felt need r civic participation. Second, the city of Wichita, some reSpects, may be unique with reSpect to its contact -th handicapped individuals. For over thirty years the nstitute of LogOpedics, located in Wichita, has provided ervices for many thousands of severely physically handi- :apped children and adults. This prolonged exposure may well have affected attitudes toward the handicapped held by persons living in the community. Third, the SER group constitutes a rather heterogenous array of professional endeavors. Specifically, this group included Special education teachers, rehabilitation workers, physicians, nurses, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists. This diversity of training and pro- fessional interest may have had certain uncontrolled effects on the SER group scores. ' One last possible limitation involves the uniformity of the respondents understanding of the terms referring to physical handicaps. While each respondent was required to read a glossary containing definitions of blindness, partial sightedness and physical handicap, it is quite possible that 164 respondents interpreted these conditions on the basis of their previous experience and perceptions. In order to avoid this type of group overlap, it is recommended that subsequent studies, at least within the United States, limit the SER sample to individuals whose training and experience has been specifically in special education and rehabilitation rather than including persons with mixed backgrounds. This would insure, at least, more accurate interpretation of research results. Recommendations relating to ana ysis procedures Future studies might profit from investigation of the linear vs curvilinear nature of the hypothesized correlational relationships. Utilizing contingency tables, chi square, and plotting procedures for graphically illustrating actual data curves are additional analysis methods which might prove helpful. The recommendations of both Felty (1965) and Friesen (1966) concerning the use of factor analysis should likewise be explored. .The use of “factor-score" or "factor-measure- ment" products could prove helpful in the multiple regression [analysis by reducing the large number of predictor variables to more manageable and workable size. 165 Concluding Summary This section will be directed to a discussion of two nmjor aspects of the study: (a) review of the sex-linked composition of the occupational groups, and (b) the rela- tnonship between theory and the findings of the present study. Sex and occupational group interaction Table 27 compares the total sample differences between males and females on Benevolence value and the attitude scales. As indicated by Table 27, females had significantly higher Benevolence value scores than did their male counterparts. These differences were significant at the .005 level. Table 27 also indicates that the female sample scored significantly lower on the ATDP scale than males indicating more positive attitudes toward handicapped persons. A similar significant difference suggesting more positive atti- ‘tudes toward blind persons was also found for the total female sample. This difference was significant at the .005 level. Lastly, as hypothesized, the female sample demonstrated significantly more progressive attitudes toward education than did the male sample. This difference was significant at the .05 level. A A Tables 32 through 39 relate to differences between the occupational groups on the value and attitude variables. 166 Significant differences, controlled for sex by the analysis of covariance routine, were found for the following variables: attitude-toward-disabled-persons, attitude-toward-blind- persons, Benevolence, Leadership, progressive educational attitudes, and birth control. Relationship between theory_and results As evidenced by Table 13, there was a signifiCant rela- ' tionship correlationally between contact and handicapped persons as well as blind persons scores. When partialled out, alternative rewarding Opportunities to contact with handicapped and blind persons, contributed significantly. Zetterberg (1963, p. 13) has indicated that the volitional nature of contact is crucial. In other words, although reapondents had 'alternative action possibilities, they chose to interact with handicapped and blind persons. While not statistically sig- nificant, alternative rewarding Opportunities also contributed most to the multiple correlations for both progressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The findings in Tables 28 and 29 indicate that the relationship between the change variables and ATDP, ATBP, and progressive-traditional educational attitudes were all significant. These results lend validity to Felty's (1965) contention concerning the relationship of these variables to attitudes. 167 Tables 32 through 39 indicate that group membership may be an important factor with respect to certain attitudes and value variables. This finding is in keeping with the theoretical position of Kerlinger (1958) which posits a ,relationship between attitudes and group membership. Specifically, the SER group tended to have higher asset value orientation than other occupational groups. This finding is also consistent with Jordan's (1961.) theoretical position. REFERENCES Allport, F. H. Theories of Perce tion and the Concept of . Structure. New York: Wiley, 1955. Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Garden City, N. 1.: Doubleday Anchor oo s, on e y, 1958. The Politics of Develop- PPIncetonUniversity Almond, C. 8:. Coleman, J. S. (Eds.) in Areas. Princeton, N. J.: Press, I960. Anderson, Sara E. The Change in Attitudes of Prospective Teachers Toward Education and Teaching in Secondary Schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, l96h. Arnholter, E. G. Attitudes toward the disabled Rehabilita- tion Counselor Bulletin. 6: 26-30; March, i965?""5“" Back, K. W. The change-prone person in Puerto Rico. Publig Opinion gparterly. 22: 330-3h0; Fall, 195 . _ Baer, Harry (Mrs.) Parents face a challenge. Crippled Child. 29: 22-23; Aug., 1951. Baldwin, W. K. The social position of mentally handicapped children in the regular classes in the public schoo . J: of Exceptional Children. 25: 106-108, 112; 1958. Barker, R. G. The social psychology of physical disability. . J. of Social Issueg. a: 28-38; 19L . Barker, R. G. 8:. Wright, Beatrice. The Midwest and Its Children. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson an 0., 95 . w a Gonick, Barker, R. G., Wright, Beatrice'A., Meyerson, L. - M. R. Ad'ustment to Ph sical'Handica and Illness. New York: SocIaI Science Research CouncII, I955. 169 Badt, Margit I. Attitudes of university students toward exceptional children and special education. Excep- tional Children. 23: 287; April, 1957. Bastide, R. Stereotypes et prejuges de couleur, Brazil. Sociologia 18: May, 1955. Bastide, R. & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms and inter-racial behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review. 22: 689-69h; December, 1957. Bateman, Barbara, Sighted children's perceptions of blind children's ability. J. of Exceptional Children. 29: A2'h6; sept o , 1962 O - Becker, H. Throu h values to Social Inter retation. ‘Durham, N. 5.: Duke University Press, 1955. Bell, A. Attitudes of selected rehabilitation workers and other hospital employees toward the physically dis- abled. Psychological Report. 10: 183-186; 1962. Bennie, G., Benne, K., 8:. Chin, R. (Eds.) The Plannin of Chapge. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1951. Berreman, J. V. Some implications of research in the social psycholbgy of physical disability. J. of Exceptional Children. 20: 3h7-350; May, 195A. - Rice, H. Some factors that contribute to the concept of self in the child with cerebral palsy. Mental Hygiene. 38: 120-131; January, 1951.. Billings, H. An exploratory study of the attitudes of non-crippled children toward crippled children in . three selected elementary schools. J, of Experimental Education. 31: 381-387; 1963. Bitter, J. Attitude change by parents of trainable mentally retarded children as a result of group discussion. . 30: 173-177; December, ‘19 3. Blake, R. &.Glenn, V. 'Perce tion an A roach to Personalit . . New York: The RonaIa Press, 1951. p . 170 Blatt, B. The physical, personality and academic status of children who are mentally retarded attending special classes as compared with children who are mentally retarded and attending regular classes. American J. 02 Mental Deficiency. 62: 810-818; March. I953. Block J. R. &.Yuker, H. E. Correlates of an Intellectual 0rientation Among College Students. Proceedings of the 73rd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1965. ‘ Block W. E. A study of somatopsychological relationships in cerebral palsied children. J. of Exce tional Children. 22: 347-350, 356-357; 19531"'£""" Block, W. E. Some experimentally based implications for personality habilitation of children with cerebral palsy. Cgpepral Palsy Review. 17: 12; Jan.-Feb., 1956. - Campbell, D. T. &.Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discrimi- nant validation by the multitrait-mulimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 56: 81-105; 1959. Cantoni, L. Two ways of assessing employer willingness to hire the handicapped. Rehabilitation Counselor Bulletin. 7: 56-58; 19632 Carlson, E. R. "Attitude change through modification of attitude structure. J. of Abnormal &.Social Psychology. 52: 256-261; 1956. Cartwright D. Some principles of mass persuasion; flnmén Relations. 2: 253-268; 19u9. . Centers, Louise & Centers, R. 0. Peer group attitudes toward the amputee child. J. pf Spcia; Psychology. 63: 127-132; 1963. Cessna, W. 0., Jr., The Psychosocial Nature and Determ- inants of Attitudes Toward Education and Toward Physically Disabled Persons in Japan. Unpublished gogtoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 9 7. Chevigny, H. &.Braverman S. The Adjustment of the Blind. New Haven:. Yale University ress, . . 171 Cholden, L. A Psychiatrist Works with Blindness. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1958. Christiansen, B. Attitudes Toward Foreign Affairs as a Epnction of Personalit . 0510: Oslo—University Press, I959. Clark, J. Manual of Computer Programs, Research Services Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 1964 (mimeo). Clark, E. R. Children's perceptions of educable mentally retarded children. American J. oflnental Deficiency. 68: 602-614; 1964. Classon, M. E. A Correlation Study of'Elementary School Teachers' Attitudes Toward Children and Teaching and Toward Supervision. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, Colorado State College, 1963. Clunk, J. 8. Employer attitudes and the adjustment of the blind. in Psychological Diagnosis and Counseling of the Adult Blind. ed by Donahue & Donahue, New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1947. Cohen, J. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. American J. of Mental Deficiency. 67: 705—713, 1963. Committee Print No. 8, Subcommittee on Reorganization and Internal Organizations (3. Report No. 1038, 86th Congress). Rehabilitation of the disabled in thirt - river countries of the world. Washington: United States Govt. Printing Office, January, 1960. P. 153. (Sonnor, C. An educator looks at attitudes. New Outlook for the Blind 57: 153-156; May, 1963. (Sooley, W. W. & Lohnes P. R. Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wiley aEnd SonETi962 . (Book, J. H. Dimensional analysis of child-rearing attitudes of parents of handicggped children. American J of Mental Deficiency. : 354-361;.May, 1963. 172 Cowen, E., Underberg, R., & Verrillo, R. Adjustment to Visual Disabilit in Adolescence. New York: eri- can Foundation for the Biind, i961. Cruickshank, W. M. (ed.). Psychology of Exceptional Child- ren agd Youth. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice - Hall, 1955. Cruickshank, W. M. Psycholo of Exce tional Children and Youth. 2nd. ed. Enflewood CIiI'i's, N. J.: Prentice - . HaII, 1963. . Outright, P. National political development. American Sociological Review. 28: No. 2; April, 19 3. Cutsforth, T. The Blind in School and Society: A Psycho- _ logical Study. ew or : mer can oun ation for the 9 Blind, 1951. ‘ Dean, J. T. Attitudes of College Professors Toward Education in Small Liberal Arts and Church Related Colleges. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,.Michigan State University, 1967. Dean, P. &.Eichorn, R. L. The cross-sectional field survey in Doby, J. T. (ed.) An Introduction to Social Research. Harrisburg, Penn.: The StacEpoIe 00., 1954, Pp. 199’2zhe Dembo, Tamara, Leviton, 0., 8: Wright B. Adjustment to misfortune - a roblem of social ps chological rehab- ilitation. Art ficial Limbs 3: 4-6 ; 195 . Denhoff, E. & Holden, R. Family influence on successful school adjustment of cerebral palsied children. Exceptional Children. 21: 5-57; October, 195A. DeJonge, J. J. & Sim, F. M. Use of factor anal sis r0 ams . for the CDC 600. -Michigan State University Computer Laboratory or ocial Science Research, Technica Report, 2, January 20, 1964. Deutsch, M. Field theory in social psychology. In Lindzey, . G. (ed.). Handbook of Socia1.Ps cholo Vol. 1 Theory and metfioa. R'éaaing, Mass“ IEiison-Wesley PDbe 000,195h0 A I 173 Dickstein, Joan.& Dripps, Elaine. An analysis of attitudes of acceptance-rejection towards exceptional children. Master of Education Thesis, Boston University, 1958. Dotson, L. An empirical study of attitude component theory. Public Opinion Quarterly. 26: 64-67; Spring, 1963. Dent, A. An investigation of attitudes toward.work ad ust- T82; of the blind. New Outlook Blind. 56: 357-3 2; Dingman, H., et. al., An investigation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers with retarded children. American J. of Mental Deficiency. 67: 899-908; '1963. DuBrow A. W. Attitudes toward disability. JI of Rehab- ilitation. 31: 25-27; 1965. Earle, R. A. & Paoza, J. A. A pilot study using the attitudes toward disabled persons scale. Rehabilita- tion Counselor Bulletin. 7: 87-91; March, I964. Edwards, A. L. Techni ues of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: AppIeEon-Cenfury-Crofts, Inc., 1957. Edwards, A. L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research . New York: Rinehart, 9 . A Edwards A. L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Hoit, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Elser, R. P. The social position of hearing handicap ed children in the regular grades. Exceptional Chi dren. 25: 305€3093 1959. Epperman, D. C.l& Schmuk, R. A. The uses of social psychol-' ogy in com arative education. Comparative Educatigp Review. 1 2-190; February, 1963. Farber, B. Family organization and crises: Maintenance of integration in families with a severely retarded child. Mono ra he of the So iet for Research in Child Deveiopmenp. 25: 1960; No. I la}. Farber, B. Perceptions of crisis and related variables in the impact of a retarded child on the mother. J of Health and Human Behavior.. 1: 108-118; Summer, i950. (b) 17h Farber, B., Jenne, W.,«& Toigo, R. Family crisis and the decision to institutionalize the retarded child, Councii for Exceptional Chiidren Research Monographs. Series A, No. 1, Washington D. 0.: the Council, igggpaftment of the National Education Association. . c Farber, B. Effects of a severely mentally retarded child on family integration. ,Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Deve Oppent. 4: o. , 59. Felty, J. E. The measurement of attitudes toward disability in SQ] Jose, Costa Riga, A scale approapp po tpg problem of concept eguivalence. Paper read at the Ninth Interamerican Congress of Psychology, Miami, Florida, December, 1964. Felty J. E. Attitudes Toward Physical Disability in Costa Rica and Their Determinants: A Pilot Study. Unpub- iégged doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, Festinger, L. A Theor of C0 itive Disonance. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson & 00., 1957. Fielding, B. B. The rehabilitation process and the status of the disabled in the community. Exceptional Children. 19: March, 1953 . Fliegler L. & Hebeler, J. A Study of the structure of attitudes of parents of educable mentally retarded children and a study of a change in attitude structure. U. 3. Dept. of'HEM, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Program, Project No. 018. Syracuse, N. Y.: Syracuse University Research Institute, V01. 1 and V01. 2, 1960. ‘ Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research. International J. of O inion and Attitude Research. Foa, U. G. The continuity principle in the structure of . interpersonal relations. Human Relations. 11: 229- 238; August, 1958. . Force D. 0. Social status of ph sically handicapped children. . a" pgppional Children. 23: 01-107; 132; December, 1956. 175 French, J. W. What is factor analysis? College Board Review. 10: 129-131; March, 1950. Friesen, E. W. Nature and Determinants of Attitudes Toward Education and Toward Physically Disabled Persons in Columbia, Peru, and the United States. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Fruchter, B. & Jennings, E. Factor analysis. In H. Borko (ed.). Com uter A lications in the Behavioral Scien- ces. New York: Prentice-- Haii, I954. Gillette, Harriet. Preschool training for cerebral palsy. Archives of Ph sical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 35: 3I-3E; Jan., i955. Good, C. B. and Scates, D. E. Methods of Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Cro ts, . Goode, W. J. &.Hatt, P. K. .Methods in Social Researdl. McGraw-Hill, New York, I952: Goodman, N., Dornbusch, S. M., Richardson, 8. A., & Hastorf, A. H. Varient reactions to ysical dis- abilities. American Social Revigy. 8: 429-435; June, 1963. Gordon, L. V. Manual for Surve of Inter ersonal Values. Science Research Associates, Inc., 7-275I; Chicago, Illinois, 1960. Gordon, L. V. Research briefs on the survey of interpersonal. values. Science Research Associates, Inc., 1963. p. 28. u Cowman, A. G. The War Blind in American Social Structure. New York: mer can oun a on or e n , . Gratke, Juliette. 'Cerebral Palsy is a challenge to parents. I Crippled Child. 25: 14-15; February, 194 . Green, B. F. Attitude Measurement. In G. Lindzey (ed.). db ok of Social Ps cholo . V01. 1 Theory .223 Mgtfiod. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub. CO. , 195‘}. 176 Green J. H. Attitudes of Special Educators Versus Regular Teachers Toward the Physically Handicapped and Toward Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Greenberg, H. Problems of parents of handicapped children. Exceptional Children. 17: 1-7, 23, 24; October, 1950. Guilford J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw - Hill, 1954. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for intensity and scale analysis; Education and Pa cholo ical Measurement. 1947, 7, 217-2 . Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measurement. In S. A. Stauffer (ed.). Measurement and Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University ress, . Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly. 18: 395-404; Winter , 1951* o Guttman, L. The principle components of scalable attitudes. In P. F. Lazersfeld (ed.), Maphemapigal Th%pkipg in the Social Sciences. Glencoe, 111.: The ree Press, I95h. Guttman, L. *A structural theory for intergroup beliefs ,and action. American Sociological Review. 24: Guttman, L. The Structurin of Sociolo ical S aces. Technical Note No. 3 Contract No. AF 6i E052F121, December, 1961, p. 14. Guttman, L. & Foa, U. G. Social contact and intergroup attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly. 43-53; Spring, 195 . ‘ Guttman, L. & Stouffer, S. A.‘ et a1. Mgasuyemgnt apg Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, ~1955. Guttman, L. &.Suchman, E. A. Intensity and zero-point for attitude analysis. American Sociological Review. 12: 57'67; 19h7o ~ ' 177 Hafterson, J. M. Multiple scalogram analysis (MSA) on the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Insti- tute for Social Science Research, Technical Report 6, February 10, 1964. .Hagen, E. E. On the Theory of Social Change. Homewood, 111.: The Dorsey Press,*I962. Haltzman, W. H. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. J. of Social PsychologY. 48: 305-317; 1958. Hamm, William (Mrs.). Parents: set an honest goal. Crippled Child. 26: 8-9, 28; December, 1949. Hand,lhary C. Teacher Characteristics Associated with Change Attitudes and Performance in the Teaching of Reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1964. Hanks, J. R. & Hanks, L. M. The physically handicapped in certain non-occidental societies. J. of Social Issues. 14.: 19148. Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G. & Cruickshank, W. M. Aptitudes p; EducatorsToward Exceptional Children. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 195 . Harris, D. B. A study of the modification of parental atti- tudes toward an understanding of mentally retarded children. Institute for Child Development and Welfare, College of Education, University of'Minnesota, 1959, Contract 7774, U. 5. Office of Education Heater, W. H. Attitudes of'Ministers Toward.Mental Retarda- tion and Toward Education: Their Nature and Determin- ants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,.Michigan State University, 1967. Hentig, Hans von. Physical disability, mental conflict and social crisis. J. of Social Issues. 4: 21-27; 1948. Himes J. 8. Some concepts of blindness in American.culture. In Attitudes Toward Blindness. New York: American ‘Foundation for the Blind, I95 . 178 Hollinshead, M. The social psychology of exceptional children: 53;; 1. Exceptional Children. 26: 137-140; November, Romans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1954. . Romans, G. C. Social thavior: Its Elementar Forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and WorId, I96I. Horowitz, Leola & Rees, Norma. Attitudes and information igggt deafness. Volta Review 64: 180-189; April, Hyman, H. Survey Design and Analysis. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free“Press, 1955. International Society. Proceedings of phe ninth world con ress of the international societ for the rehab- ilitafiion of EEE diéaEIEE. New York: international Society, 19 3. ‘ , Iscoe, Ira. The functional classification of exceptional . children. In E. P. Trapp and P. Himelstein (eds.) Readings on the Exceptional Child. New York: Appleton- entury-- r0 ts, . Jacobson, E. & Schachter, S. (eds.). Cross-National Research: A Case Stud . J. of SociaI Issues. 10: 4; I954. Jacobson, E. Kumata, H. & Gullahorn, Jeanne E. Cross- cultural contributions to attitude research. Public Opinion Quarterly. 24: 205-223; Summer, 1960. Johnson, G. O. A study of the social position of mentally retarded children in the regular rades. Ameyicap J, of Mental Deficiency. 55: 60- 9; 1950. Johnson, G. O. A Comparative Study of the Personal and Social Ad'ustment of the Mentall‘ Handica ed Placed o ema 1n e u ar asses. yracuse: Syracuse niver51ty esearc nstltute Office of Research in Special Education and Rehabilitatim, 1961. 179 Jordan, A. M. Personal--Socia1 traits of mentally handi- capped children. An Evaluapion of EducatingpMentally Handicapped Children in Special Clasges and ;p_fipg- plar Classeg. Chapel Hill: School of Education, University of North Carolina, 1959. Jordan, J. E. The Guatemala research and training center in rehabilitation and special education. Selected Convention Papers-$0th Annual Convention. Washington, 1962.: he ounc for Exceptiona hi dren, NEA, Jordan, J. E. The university looks at rehabilitation: an international perspective. J. of the Michigan.Medica1 Society. 620; 1962. Jordan, J. E. Rehabilitation and Special Education in Latin America. Papers read at the Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Mar del Plata, Argentina, April, 1963; and at the Second International Sem- inar on Special Education, Nyberg, Denmark, 1963 (a). Jordan, J. E. Special Education in patin America. World Horizons in Special Education. Proceedings of 1963 Summer Lecture Series, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1963 (b). Jordan, J. E. Problems and promises of education in Latin America: Special education in Latin America. Phi Delta Kappan. January, 1964. (a). Jordan, J. E. La Rehabilitacion y Educacion Especial en la America Latina, Revista Mexicana de Psicologia, February, 1964 (b). Jordan, J. E. Cross-cultural attitudes toward disability. Paper read at the Ninth Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Miami, Florida, December, 1964. (c). Jordan, T. Conceptual issues in the deveIOpment of a tax- onomy of special education. Exceptional Children. 28: 7-12; Spptember, 1961. Justman, J. et al. The Inte ration of Deaf Children in a Hearin Class. Bureau 0% Educationai Research Pu5- Iicztions. No. 36, New York City Board of Education, 180 Justman. J- & Moskowitz 8. MW- ren in a Hearin Class: The Second Year. Bureau 0? Educational Research Pubiications, N0. 38, New York City Board of Education, 1957. Katz, D. The functional approach to the stud of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarter y. 24: 163-204; ummer, 1960. Katz, Levin, M. L., & Hamilton, M. Research on the D. diffusion of innovation. American Sociological Eeyiew. 28: (2); April, 1963. Katz, D. & Stotland, E. A preliminary statement to a theory of attitude structure and change. In Kock, S. (ed.) Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 3. Formulations of the person and the social context. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959, pp. 423-475. Kay, Lillian Wald. The relation of personal frames of reference to social judgements. Archives of Psych- ology. 40: 283; 1944. Kenworthy, A. L. Use of analysis of variance routines on the CDC 3600. AES Program DescriptiSn 2, Compu- teg Laboratory, Michigan State University, September, 19 3. Kelley, H. H., et a1. Some implications of social psycho- logical theor for research on the handicapped. In Lefquist (ed.¥ Eaynho1ogina1_Reseanch_and_Rehabili- talinn. Washin ton, D. C.: American Psychological Association, 19 O. Kerlinger, F. N. Factor invariance in the measurement of attitudes toward education. Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement. 21: 273-285; 1961. Kerlinger, F. N. Progressiveness and traditionalism: basic factors of educatibnal attitudes. J. of Social Psychology. 68: 111-135; 1958. Kerlinger, F. N. & Kaya, E. The construction and factor analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes toward education. Educational and Ps cholo ical Measurement. 19: 13-29; I959. Kerlinger, F. N. The attitude structure of the individual; A Q-study of the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. Genetic Psychology, 1956, Vol. 53, pp.283- 329. 181 Kiel, D. F. & Ruble, W. L. Use of core routine to calcu- late multiple regressions (least squares fits to arbitrary functions? on the CDC 3600. AES Program Description 4, Michigan State University, Computer Laboratory, September, 1963 (a). Kiel, D. F. prmulas used in the pore roupipg. AES Program Description 12, Michigan State University, Computer Laboratory, December, 1963 (b). Kilpatrick, F. P. & Cantril H. Self-anchoring scaling: a measure of individuals' unique reality Worlds. J. of Individual Psychology. 16: 158-173; 1960. Kirk, S. A. Educating Exceptional Children. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1962. Klineberg, O. Tensions Affecting International Understand- in I New York: Social Science Research Council, BuI . 62; 1950. Klein, P. Cerebral Palsy - A Social Problem. New York: United Cerebral Palsy Of New York City, 1953. Klausmer, M. The attitudes of mothers toward institution- alized and non-institutionalized retarded children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, New York University, 19 l. Kluckhohn, Florence R. & Strodtbeck, F. L. Variations in Value Orientations. Evanston, 111.: Row, Peterson, 1961: , Kramer, A. S. The Interrelation of Belief Systems and Educational Values: A Study of the Educational Attitudes of Individual School Teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1963. Kramer, C. Y. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biomepricg. . 12: 307-310; 1956. Krieder, P. E. The Social-Psychological Nature and Deter- minants of Attitudes Toward Education and Toward Physically Disabled Persons in Belgium, Denmark, England,France, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. F 182 Kvaraceus, W. C. Acceptance-rejection and exceptionality. Exceptional Children. 28: 83-90; May, 195 Labbens, J. Resistance to change. International Social Science J. 12: 492-499; 1960. Laycock S. Helping parents to accept their exce tional children. xceptional Children. 18: 129-13 ; Feb., 1952. Laycock, S. Community understanding of the exceptional child. WW. 21: 47-49; November. 1954. Lapp, E. R. A study of the social adjustment of slow- learning children who were assigned part-time to regular classes. American J, of Mental Deficiengy. 58: 544-552; April, 1954. Lawrence, Edna R. The Relationships of Teachers Expressed Self-Acceptance and Acceptance of Children to Social Beliefs and Educational Attitudes. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation, New York University, 1963. Lerner, D. The Passing of Tragitional Society. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1958. Levine, B. D. A study of’ccmmon beliefs concerning cerebral palsy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Austin: University of Texas, 1956. Levine S. A. A proposed conceptual framework for Special edgcation. Exceptional Children. 28: 83-90; October, 19 l. JLewin, D. Principles of T0pologica1 Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1936. Lindquist, E. F. (ed.) Educational Measurement. Washing- ton, D. C.: American—COuncil on Education, 1951. Lingoes, J. C. Multiple scalogramianalysis: a set theoret- ical model fer analyzing dichotomous items. Educational & Psychological Measurement. 23: 501-524; 1963. ‘i’V‘l A 183 Lipset, S. M. The value patterns of demogracy. American Sociological Review. 28: August, 19 3. Lefquist, L. (ed.) Psychological Research and Rehabilita- tion. ‘Washington, D. C.: American Psthdlogicel Association, 1960. Loomis, C. P. Social Systems. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Co., 9 O. Loomis, C. P. & McKinney, J. C. Systematic differences between Latin.American communities of family farms and large estates. American J. of Sociolggy. 61: 404-412; March, 1956. ' ,Lubberts, A. Attitude measurement of the public toward the deaf in Olathe, Kansas. Unpublished'Masters Thesis. Lawrence: 'University of Kansas, 1965. Lukoff, I. &.Whiteman, M. Attitudes toward blindness - some preliminary findi s. New Outlook for the Blind. 55: 39-44; February, 19 1. Zlader, J. B. .Attitudes of Special Educators Toward the Physically Handicapped and Toward Education. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. lesson, R. An investigation of the relationship between body image and attitudes eXpressed toward visually disabled persons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Buffalo, University of Buffalo, 1963. McAlees, D. C. An exploratory study of special education in the Central American republic of Guatemala. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, East Lansing, Michigan State University, 1963. McGervery, Hulda R. Anchoring effects in the absolute Judgement of verbal materials. Archives of Psychology. 39: 82; 1943~ McKinney, J. C. Constructive typology and social research. In J. T. Doby (ed.), An.Introduction to Social Re- search. Harrisburg, Pa.: The ShachpoIe Co., I954, pp. : 39-223 0 184‘ MbKinney, J. C. & Loomis, C. P. The typological trad- itions. In J. S. Rancek (ed.), Contem orar Sociolo . New York: Philosophicai Iihrary, 9 . ppo 557-582- Mead, Margaret, Cultural Patterns and Technical Change. UNESCO, 1950. Nerton, R. K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The ree Press 0 Glencoe, 1957. Eeyer, Edith & Crothers, B. Psychological and physical evaluation of patients with cerebral palsy studies for periods of ten years or more. .American J. of Ppysical Medicine. 32: 153-158; June, 1953. Eeyerson, L. Somatopsychology of physical disability. In W. M. Cruickshank (ed.), Ps cholo of Exceptional Children and Youth. nnglewood Ciiffs: Prentice:— 3811, 1953. pp. 1-52. Meyerson, L. Physical disability as a social psychological problem. J. of Social Issue. 4: 2-10; 194 . IMiles, A. P. ,American Sggial Tnegzy: A Critique and a Pr0posal. New York, Harper, 1954. ,Mdller, R. V. Social status and socioempathic differences among mentally superior, mentally typical and men- tally retarded children. nxceptional Children. 23: 114-119; December, 1956. iMisback, Peggy. The role of speech therapy in a coordina- ted program.for preschool children having cerebral palsy. The Bulletin Geor etown University Medical Center. Part : : 14 - 0; y, ; ar : ' §55§57-214; July, 19 5; Part III: 9: 21-27; September, Mbrris, C. Varieties of Human Values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Mullen, F. A. & Itkin, W. Achievement and adjustment of educable mentally handicapped children in special classes and in regular grades. U. S. Dept. of HEW, Office of Education, Cooperative Research Program, Project No. 157, Chicago: Chicago Board of Educa- tion and Dept. of Public Instruction of the State of Illinois, 1961. 185 Murphy, A. T. .Attitudes of educators toward the visually handicap ed. Sight Saving Review. 30; 157-161; Fall, 19 O. Mussen, P. H. & Barker, R. G. Attitudes toward cripples. J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 39: 331-355; 1944. O'Connor, F. & Goldberg, I. Children with crippling con- ditions and special health problems. Review of Educa- tional Research. 29: 471-496; December, 1959. _“' O'Connor, C. & O'Connor, L. A study of the integration of deaf children in regular classrooms. Exceptional Children. 27: 483-486; May, 1961. Olshansky, S. & Kettel, Majorie. Attitudes of some interns and first-year residents toward the institutionaliza- tion of mentally retarded children. Training School Bulletin. 59: 116-120; 1963. Olshansky, S. &.Sternfeld, L. Attitudes of some pedia- tricians toward the institutionalization of mentally retarded children. Eyeining School Bulletin. 59: 57'73; 1952- Osgood, C. The measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Palmerton, K. B. Attitudes of College Counselors Toward hducation and Toward Physically Disabled Persons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Parsons, F. The Social S stem. New Yerk: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1951. Parsons, T. &.White, W. The link between character and society. In S. M. Lipset and Leo Lowenthal (eds.), Culture and Social Character. New York: The Free Fress of Glencoe, 1951, pp. 98-103. . .Parsons, T. & Shils, a. A. (eds.). Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge: fiarvEFE‘UET?3?§Ity Presa’ 1. Payne, S. L. The Art of Asking Qpestions. -Princeton: Princeton vers ty ress, . 186‘ Peters, G. C. & Van'Voorhis, W. R. Statistical Procedures and Their Mathematical Bases. New York: ‘MCGraw - Hill, 1940. President's Panel on Mental Retardation. A PrOposed Program for’National Action to Combat mental Retardation. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, October, 1962. Proctor, Doris. The Relationship Between Knowledge of Dis- abilities, Kind and.Amount of BXperience, and Classroom Integration of exceptional Children. Unpublished _ doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Purcell, W. J. Some Factors Affecting.Attitudes of Pros- pective Teachers Toward Elementary Mathematics. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964. Raskin, N. The attitudes of sighted eo 1e toward blindness. Paper presented to the‘NationathsychoIogIcaI Researcfi Council on Blindness, 1956. Rawis, H. D. Social factors in disability. New Outlook for the Blind. 51: 231-236; June, 1957. Reeves, J. K. Some parental and social attitudes towards children using hearing aids. Volta Review. 64: 314- 316, 331, June, 1962. - Review of sducational Research. 29: December, 1959. Tme A uca on of hxceptional Children. Review of educational Research. 33: February, 1963. The education of exceptional—Children. Reynolds, M4 The social psychology of exceptional children: Pagt III. exceptional Children. 26: 243-246; January, 19 0. Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H. 8: Dornbusdl , S. M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociolo ical Review. 26: 241-247; April, 1961. . Riley, Matilda W., Riley, J. W. & Jackson, T. Sociological Studies in Scale Anal sis. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1954. . Riley, Matilda W. Sociolo ical Research. New‘Ybrk: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963. ' 187 Robinson, Mary B. education for Social Change. Washington, D. C.: Brookins Institution, 19613 Roeher, G. A. A study of certain public attitudes toward the orthopedically disabled. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. New York: New York University, 1959. Roeher, G. A. Significance of public attitudes in the rehabilitation of the disabled. Rehabilitation Liter- ature. 22: 66-72; 1961. Rogers, E. M3 Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Rosenburg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal affect. Jéiof Abnormal and Social Psychology. 53: 367-372; 1956. Rosenburg,.M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly. 24: 319-340; Summer, 1960. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F. & Rafter, Mary n. Calculation of Least Squares (Regression) Problems on the LS Routine. ‘Stat. Series—Descriptioano. 7}“Agricu1tura1 experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L. & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation of Basic Statis- tics When Missing Data is Involved (the‘MDSTKTiRoutineT. Stat. Series Description—No. 6, Agricultural BXperiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary B. One-way Analysis of Variance with Une ual Number of Re lications Permitted Stat. Series Description No. I3, AgricuIEuraI experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L., Paulson, Sara J., & Rafter, Mary B. Analysis of Covariance and Analysis of Variance with Unequal '“_ Frequencies PerMitted in the Cells -‘No Interaction affects (LS routineII Stat. Series Description N5: 115, .Aggécultural AXperiment Station, Michigan State University, 0 Scott, W. A. Bmpirical assessment of values and ideologies. American Sociological Review. 24: 229-310; 1959. 188 Share, Marie. Socio-emotional factors in family of the twin with cerebral palsy. Exce tional Children. 22: 196-199, 206-208; February, 1956. Semmel, M. Teacher attitudes and information pertaining to mental deficiency. American J. of Mental Deficiency. 63: 566-57h; January, i§5§. Shibutani, T. Society and Personality. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961. Simmons, J. 8. Social integration of preschool children having hearing problems. Sociology and Social Research. 40: 99-101; November, 1955. Sinha, B. K. Maternal Attitudes and Values in Respect to , Emotionally Disturbed and Physically Disabled Persons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966. Smith, Inez L. The Invariance of Educational Attitudes and Their Relations to Social Attitudes: An Inverse Factor Analytic Study. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, New York University, 1963. Smith M. B.. Personal values as determinants of a polit- ical attitude. J. of Psychology. 23: 477-486; l9h9. Smith, T. Values held by peeple in Latin America which affect technical cooperation. Rural Sociology. 21: 68'75; 19560 Soldwedel, Bette & Terrill, Isabelle. Sociometric aspects of physically handicapped and non-handicapped chil- dren in the same elementary school. gyceptiona; ~Children. 23: 371-372, 381-383; May, 1957. Some“. Vita 5. Was Social Environment on the Persopaligy Developmegt of the Adolescent Blind. New York: Amer can Foundation for the Biind, 1944. . Stagner, R. Attitudes. In W. S. Monroe (ed.), Encyclopedia 92 Edugationa; Rgsgargh. New York: MacMillan, 1941, Pp. 77-83. ‘ i ‘ 189 Staley, E. The Future of Underdeveloped Countries. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1961. Stauffer, S. A. Spcial Research to Test Ideas. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Stelle, R. Vocational rehabilitation as Opportunity for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf. p. 424; March, 1958. Sterns, G. G. Measuring noncognitive variables in research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicagoz. Rand McNally, 1963, 39 ‘41}? o Strauss, A. (ed.). The Social Psychology of George Herbert Mead. Chicago: Phoenii Books, University of Chicago Press, 1956. Stevens, G. D. Takonomy in Special Education for Children with Body Disorders. Pittsburgh: Dept. of Special Education and Rehabilitation, University of Pitts- burgh, 1962. Strong, E. Change of Interest with Age. Palo Alto: Stan- ford University Press, 1931. Stouffer, S. A. An overview of the contributions to scal- ing and scale theory. In S. A. Stouffer, et al., Measurement and Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 195 . Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer, et al., Measurement and Prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Suchman, E. A. Public opinion research across national bougdaries. Public Opinion Quarterly. 22: Summer, 195 . . Suchman, E. A. An analysis of bias in survey research. Public Opinion Quarterly. 24: 102-111; Spring, 1962. Suchman, E. A. The comparative method in survey research. Rural Sociology. 29: 123-137; June, 1964. 190 Suchman, E. A. & Guttman, L. A solution to the question bias problem. Public Opinion‘guarterly. 445-455. Smart, Euselia. Social service in the treatment of cerebral palsy. American J. of Physical Medicine. 32: 159-164; June, 1953. Tatsuoka, M. M. & Tiedeman D. V. Statistics as an aspect of scientific method in research on teaching. In N. L. Gage (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teachin . Chicago: Rand McNaiiy, i965. Taylor, J. L. A Study of the Relationship Between Attitudes Toward Education and the Extent to which Teachers Participate in Certain Professional Activities, 'Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1963. Tenny J. W. The minority status of the handicapped. Exceptional Children. 19: 260-264; April, 1953. Toth, J. E. An analysis of the nature and extent of rehab- ilitation in Guatemala. Unpublished doctoral diss- ergation, East Lansing: Michigan State University, 19 3. Towns, Margaret. Social service vital to cerebral palsy teamwork. Crippled Child. 28: 4-5; April, 1951. Thoreson, w. P. Conflicting Social Norms as they Affect Attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1963. Thurstone, Thelma. An evaluation of educating mgnpally handlcapped children in s ecial c-a e re lar classes. Chapel Hill: School of Education, Univers1ty of North Carolina, 1959. Thurstone, Thelma. An evaluation of educating mentally handicapped Children in special classes and in regular classes. U. S. Dept. of HEW, Office of Education, COOperative Research Program, Progect Noé 513. Grambling, La.: Grambling College, 19 0. Trippe, M. The social psychology of exceptional children: Part 11. Exce tional Children. 26: 171-175, 188; December, i959. ‘ 191 Underberg, Rita. The relationship between parental under- standing and child adjustment in visually disabled adolescents. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rochester: University of Rochester, 1958. United Nations. Seminar on rehabilitation of the physically disabled for participants from Latin American count- ries. New York: U. N. Publications, 1960. UNESCO. Comparative cross-national research. International Social Science Bulletin. 7: 1955. UNESCO. Opinion surveys in deveIOping countries. Inter- national Social Science J. 15: 1963. UNESCO. Data in comparative research. International Social Science J. 16: 1964. Usher Eunice. An integrated approach to cerebral palsy. Delaware State Medical J. 18: 196-199; Sept., 1946. Verillo, R. T. A study of adjustment and the relationship between parental attitudes and adjustment in visually impaired and sighted adolescents. Unpublished doc- toral dissertation. Rochester: University of Rochester, 1958. Waisanen, F. B. A notation technique for scalogram analy- sis. The Sociological Quarterly. 1: 245-252; October, 19 O. Waisanen, F. B. Finding a place in contemporary mass scolety: A problem of roles. Dept. of Social Science, University College, Michigan State UniverSlty, 1962. Waisanen, F. B. Stability, alienation and change. The Sociological Quarterly. 18-31; January, 1963. Ward, J. H. Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (ed.), Computer Applications in the Behay- 'ioral Sciences. _Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1962. Weir, R. C. An Investigation of Differential Attitudes Toward the Physically Disabled, Deaf Persons, and Attitudes Toward Education, and Their Determinants Among Various Occupational Groups in Kansas, Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. 192. Wart, J. E., Neidt, C. 0., & Ahman, J. S. Statistical Methods in Educatipnal and Psychological Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1954. Whiteman,.M. & Luckoff, I. F. Public attitudes toward blindneSS. The New Outlook for the Blind. 56: 153-158; May, . Williams, R. American Society. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1963, pp. 372-442. Wison, E. C. Problems of survey research in modernizing areas. Publig Opinipn Quarterly. 22: 230-234; Fall, 1958. Windle, C. & Vallance, T. R. The future of military psychology: para-military psychology. American Psychologist. 19: 119-128; February, 19 4. Wolfe, W. & Reid, L. A Survey of Cerebral Palsy in Texas. Austin: United Cerebral Pa sy of axes, 195 . . Woodruff, A. D. & DiVesta, F. J. The relationship between values, concepts and attitudes. Educational & Psych- ological Measurement. 8: 645-660; 1948. - Norchel, T. & Worchel, P. The parental concept of the mentally retarded child.' American J. of Mental Deficiengy. 65: 782-788; May, 19 l. Wortis, H. & Cooper, W. The life eXperience of persons with cerebral palsy: A study of 63 histories. American J. of Ph sical Medicine. 36: 328-344; December, i957. Wright, Beatrice A. Ph sical Disabilit - A Ps cholo ical Approach. New Yorfi: Harper and Brothers, i965. Yuk, G. J., et al., Maternal acceptance of retarded chil- dren: a questionnaire study of attitudes and relig- iogs background. 9hild Development. 32: 525-540; 19 lo ‘ Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, D. A. A scale to ‘ measure attitudes toward disabledgpersons. Human RESources Study No. 5. AIbertsoh, N. Y.: Human Rezources Foundation, Division of Abilities,-Inc., 19 O. Zetterberg, H. L. Op Thgory and Verification in Sociology. Totawa, N. J.: he Bedminster Press, 9 . ~ APPENDICES 193 APPENDIX A Statistical Material 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Number of Respondents for 70 Variables for the Total Sample, Males and Females by occupational group v .5... it.» I.III.| Ibis... we m>.H me.e mm mm. mo.> mes w .H em.e cae.ssaaeaosaem .om mm mm. mm.m an m . oo.m mes a . ee.m Hem cc caeaaH .maA mm mm.e mo.m mm mw.a eo.m med em.m mm.m smeaaeam . H mm em.m pm.m mm ea.m mH.m mes em.m mm.m esoesH . H mm m .m ma.m mm me.a me.a mes Ha.a me.” acaeaaeo . H mm . mw.m «N am. mm.m nos 6 . ew.m sees eeaeeanem . H mm e . mm.m mm mm. mw.m mos o . am.m .saoe sence .ea mm 0 .NH ma.mm mm om.m m.em mod mm.aa o .mm ewe. .ma em a .H me. mm he.a em.m mos me.a op. ceaceoaocas ea .NH am an. om.m mm mm.a p~.m med mm. hw.m possesses an .aa am NH.H me.e um me. mm.e med ma.a m .e ea.soaa ease .ma am a .H o>.m mm >e.a mm.e mes o .H m>.m . as as so nae . mm m .m om.aa mm aw.a aw.ea mes m .H mw.oa as an so as» .m cm m.m mm.m mm a .m um.ea mos me. o.oa senescence . ow m.e .mw.om mm mm.m wa.ma mos mm. H.em nanoseconds. .m ow a.m w .ma as se. a. a use so.m m .ma ceaeeeeaeeaH . em a. H.0H mm em.e Hm.ea mes mm. m .ea aoacaewoeem .e am so. mm. H mm mm.> a .HH mes mm.w em.ma senescence .m on an. me. H mm Hm.e e .ma med aw. e.ps panacea .m mm oe. oe.~ mm oo. oo.a mos a . p.H New .H 2 an see: 2 dd sees a an one: season u mam case . mam Hosea . mam censuses macaw Homoapsmsooo mum on» non mpaooaommon oaosou can .oans .th0» he mofipofiner ow now monoesoqmos mo Henson can escapeaboe essence» .szozwi.m¢ mamas is. OO.H NOMMMMMMMNNMMMNNJMNHMNMNHN MQQFHWOBQN o o o o o o 0 05-55% “H MNHO MUM-ho 0ch CO H O‘O‘fl HO O" OO I‘d-HI) NFJO‘OQWN IAN N O #N MMMMMMN N MMN MN N MMMH MN MMN N budrfiCDP- O O O O O O O #HNL‘JHNOHWWQ’NONwm-QM Hammoeoooo‘armvoomm (\NNNMQ Ncommmm noa «OH «OH «OH «OH moa moa «OH moa 60H no- no- mOH moa moa mod moa moa_ moa ¢0H mOH «OH «OH med moa HO.H ceases macm assessed em as amassed ea Hmooq owed Hon so pmfiouS¢ so 0 spasm no m pawno so redeem cmaeso 364 Add ammono now owsmno mom sumaoq mom nonsense n nodes: see aez >oo 004 some; whooamsm >aaa on com on as nacem aspen nacsm macaw mason macaw macaw macaw mason aeoo Assume om ease seem as was Maom cm as« decompom 00,4 .m4 .4: .me .me GHQ 00..“ .am own .um 00“ .mn .em .mn .mm OHM .om .mm 0mm .hw com .mm .4m .mm .mm .HN .~.aaoognn.na mammw on.“ ms.mm mm ma.e ao.sn. sea 06.“ «a.mm scansensa em .05 am.“ an.oe mm ao.e mm.mm nos as.“ ea.oa essence em .me om.~ ~o.~m mm ao.a me.~m nos ma.m em.~m necesH mean as .me sH.m em.om mm ma.m e~.~m sea ma.m ea.am essence mean on .ee me.m ma.0m mm me.s ee.o~ mos Hm.m em.om esecsH ease em .06 mm.~ we.s~ mm aa.m em.m~ mos me.~ Hm.e~ cecaeoo secs am .no 6e.e mo.o mm mm.e em.ao nos se.e mm.oe aeaaeoesa a: .so em.a sm.a Nu m~.m ma.ms sea oe.e os.aa essence a: .mo ma.“ om.m ,mm on.a as.m Hos se.a ao.~ . assese dam .me No.a mm.a mm om. om.a Hos we. mm.a assess m2 .Hc ms.a em.m Hm ao.a oo.m no om.a mm.m esaceeaocae a: .06 as. em.m am as. Ho.m sea «A. mm.m csosaonsm a: .m« ee.a oe.m om mm.a ma.a em Na.a em.m oseeeH as .mm sa.a mm.~ Hm ao.a oa.m «ca «H.a ee.~ case a: .5“ em.a mn.~ Hm mm.a e~.~ Nos mm.s es.~ one>e as .0“ oa.a am.a am am. mm.e mos mo.a mm.a peso use a: .an o~.~ Hm.o an ms.~ mm.m mos am.~ em.m nose ce> an .em mm.a we.e Hm ma.~ em.c Noe mm.a ~e.c peso seem a: .mn Hm.m 5.6 mm ae.m om.“ mos cm.m em.e assesses: .~m oe. oe.m mm as. sm.m see no. oe.m meanness .Hm om. mo.m mm as. so.m sea as. no.m soo-deeeaaee .on as. ma.m mm on. oe.m no” we. se.m see-aesonaed .oe om. ma.~ mm me. n~.m mos mm. mm.~ see sax no .me as. mm.~ «N as. Ho.m mos on. mm.~ ease assess .ea L a. acou T... im a flaming a 5s. es.« on an. me.m ses es. se.m .esee os.s em ”as sm s5. om.o on 5o. 55.o Hos oo. oo.o use msom em mm so no. 55.~ on 55. mm.~ 55 No. om.~ asH ansseaonAcm .Hm so so.s o5.s mm ss.s m .s 55 55. oo.s ass ansseconaca .om no m5. 5s.m on as. ss.m Hos mm. no.5 sea as caoasH .5s no ms.~ o~.m on s5.~ ss.n Hos 5s.~ ms.m swsssssm .ms «o -.s s5.os om 5s.m os.o Hos oo.s No.5 assess .5s 5o sm.s m~.s om mm.s ms.s Hos 55. sm.~ accesses .os no 55. mm.~ on 55. om.~ Hos o~.s mm.s sees eeseesnem .ms no mo. mm.~ on an. no.5 Hos s5. no.5 5asssssee ease» .ss so m5.ss os.oa on 5o.ss m5.om oos ~m.ss so.5m ewe .ms mo os.s so.m s5 os.s no.5 o5 5m.s sm.m e>ssesccsss ea .ms 5o 55. om.m sm mm. mo.m 55 55. 5m.5 sacsaonse em .ss no sH.H os.s mm 5o. om.s ooa mo.a os.s em seam ease .os no o5.s 5o.o mm os.s mo.o cos oo.s 5o.o no as as use .5 so o5.s ~5.os mm ~5.s 5s.os Hos sm.s mo.os no em as ses .m so as.“ so.« 55 no.5 s5.~s 55 os.o 5~.os essnneeecs .5 so sw.o No.5s an mo.o 0 .ms 55 os.o o~.5s easesoeoecm .o- so 5 .5 o~.ms 55 so. m .5s 55 oo.o so.os eeaeeaeeeesH .5 so ss.s 05.os mm mm. ss.os 55 os.s 5s.os assasswoeea .s so 05.5 mm.ms mm 55. ms.ms 55 mm.o 5.ss assessesoo .5 NW ~5.s m5.ms mm os. mm.5s 55 ms.s s.os sccansm .5 oo. oo.~ o oo. .s Hos ms. so.s xem .s z .5.5 secs. 2 .a.m secs 2 .a.m see: oamsom a m odes a m Hope» 1 m manmwao> J E .asosm Hedoapeasooo m on» pom mucooooamoh oamsom one .oams .Hmpop an moabsano> 05 non wuaoocoamon mo.uonssc one mcowuefi>ov camocmum .mcmoziu.os mqm00 umz >oo 004 homes moossmsm >sc= om oom am am asses ascem aspen asaem assem asnem aspen aspen escsm afioo genome om ~.pcooMls.©4lmAmwpmsaopso pacemohcm esoosH asmo oso>< peso as< poco hm> ms pogo swam mm .05 .00 .mo .50 .oo one 040 OMQ .mo 0H0 .oo .55 own .55 00“ .55 .sm .5“ dopcoovna.os mqmsw 05 5o. 0o.5 5o 55. 55.5 55 55. 05.5 5560 esem ea .55 05 55. 55.5 5o 55. o5.5 55 55. 55.5 mesa ssem em .55 05 s5. 0o.5 5o s0.s s5.5 55 55. 5s.5 ass senescea .s5 05 ss.s 05.s 5o s5.s 5o.s 55 s5.s ss.s use sosonncm .05 05 55. 00.5 5o s5. 55.5 55 o5. s5.5 see as access .5s 05 55.s 05.5 5o 55.s ss.5 55 05.s ss.5 nmsssssm .5s 5s s5.5 s5.5 so 5.s 55.5s 55 5s.s 5o.ss canoes .5s 05 55. 55. 5o 5.s s5.s 55 55.s 5s.s senessso .os 05 ss. 05.5 5o 0 . s0.5 55 o5. 50.5 aseo ceasesnem .5s 05 00. 00.5 5o 5 . s5.5 55 55. 55.5 5200 cases .ss 05 55.ss 5o.55 5o 5s.0s .55.55 55 55.0s 55.55 e55 .5s 5 s5.s 55.5 05 oo.s 05.5 55 5o.s 55.5 oeseeeaesss em .5s 5 os. 55.5 05 5o. 5s.5 55 so. 55.5 seea5onea es .ss 5 ss.5 s5.5 05 05.s 55. 55 55.s s5.5 05 secs aseo .0s 5 5o.s 55.s 55 s5.5 55.5 s5 50.5 55.5 peso 55 use .5 05 50.5 50.5 5o 55.s so.5 55 55.s 55.5 peso 05 55> .5 05 o5.5 55.5s 5o o5.o 55.5s 55 55.5 55.os asenaosses .5 05 55.o 55.5s 5o ss.5 55.5s 55 o5.o oo.5s eoseseeesem .o 05 0o.5s 55.5s 5o s5.5 55.os 55 55.5 55.os eesessoeesss .5 05 55.s 0o.0s 5o 55.s 55.0s 55 55.s 55.0s sessssweecm .s 05 50.5 55.5s 5o s5.5 o5.ss 55 5s.o 50.5s 5csasessoo .5 05 55.5 os.os 5o 55.s 55.5s 55 s5.5 so.5s uaonoam .5 05 00. 00.5 5o 00. 00.s 55. 5s. 55.s gem .s a .0.5 sees. .z .5.5 secs 2 .0.5 secs 0.528% I S . mama I 2 Have» I E manmfihmb I I“. mm. ooomumnlntntnlnoo madmammowdbu—I ...........0 O N o MMNHMNNNHNNMMM cocooooo MMN OQWNQQHOQNNNNJQ o o o o o o o e o o o MMMMMNNNMMMNQMMNHMNNNHNN H0 v-I “No-i ##ns‘h—O “H 00 [\VMOO‘O‘JU‘tnr-I 0“!) “N #Nl‘fl Inn-4C» 00. M 55. :00 swcomuom ssh amsomuom 065 can no ossm omcono 550550 sscm masaaesm on em seasons um Hmooq owes Hom no unsound no u spasm mu m_ossno so assess ewseso n04 sou owcmno new omamao mom cameos and 55:09:30 5 eases: >00 pmz >00 004 some; omensmsm >saa as new as s5 asssm aspen asaem aspen aspen nsaem asaem escom ascem 5200 Amanda 0m A.uqooqna.5s msm<5 50.5 mm. m No.5 o5mo‘ MN. H H5.H No. 55. mm. H 00. H mH. m ms.N mn.m m5. HHHWQMMMJO‘” QNQJMNQOHNNM“H “M5004 o o c o o H ON.H O‘HN who 0 o o HNH 54.5 mo. nH.mm 5o.ms sN.Nm Nm.mN HH.Nm om.mN mn.am 55.54 No.N 0H.N mN.m musmcoucH acousoo mcousH moan coo moum mcopsH owns coo vase hpsmcousH poopsoo assess. 505 pcsoa¢ o>HumshopH< ucoshonsm osoooH sHoo oso>< peso us< peso hm> peso 8555 mm m: moosHan: wcsacmHm A.pcoovna.5o mamHH ss 55.s 50.5 55 oo.s 5s.5 00s 55. s5.5 55 s5 aspen ss s5. 55.5 55 55. 55.5 00s 05. 55.5 aseo ceases em .s5 ss 5s. 55.5 55 55. os.5 00s 55. o5.5 deco escm em .55 ss 0s. 5s.5 55 55. 55.s 00s 05. 50.5 55s0 escm em .55 ss 55. oo.5 55 55. 05. 00s s5. 55.5 ass sesenace .s5 ss 55.s s5.s 55 o5. 5o.5 00s o5.s s5.5 ass seconaea .05 ss 55. 55.5 55 05. 55.5 00s 55. 00.5 see so scenes .5s ss 55.s 55.5 55 55.s 55.5 00s 5o.s 55.5 amassssm .5s 55 os.o 05.5 55 55.s so.5 55 o5.5 55.5 csooas .5s ss 5o.s 5o. 55 55.s 55. 00s s5. s5. accesses .os ss 5o. 50.5 55 o5. 5s.5 00s 5o. ss.5 aeoo ooeoesmom .5s ss s5. 55.5 55 55. 55.5 00s 55. o5.5 sseo eases .ss ss 55.5 55.55 55 s5.0s 5s.55 00s ss.0s s0.55 . .55 .5s 05 s5.s 55.5 5s 55.s 55.5 55 s5.s 55.5 essceeceass em .5s 55 55. 5o.5 5s 55. 50.5 0s s5. 0s.5 asesaonsm 05 .ss 55 s5.s ss.5 5s ss.s 5o.s 0s 5o.s 50.5 55 secs sseo .os 55 s5.s 0s.5 55 50.5 s5.5 05 05.s 5s.5 none 55 ass .5 . ss 5o.5 55.5 55 5s.s 55.5 00s 55.s oo.5 0600 so 50> .5 ss s5.o oo.5 55 50.5 55.os 55 55. 55.5s essncoseos .5 ss 05.5 s5.5s 55 o5.o 05.5s 55 55.o 55.5s eoscso>ocom .o ss 55.o 50.5s 55 o5.o 55.5s 55 55.o 55.5s senescencees .5 ss 05.5 o5.0s 55 00.5 55.ss 55 5s.5 s0.ss ecscssmoecm .s ss 5s.5 55.5s 55 55. 55.5s 55 5o. 05.5s 5cssaecs60 .5 ss 50.5 55.5s 55 55.o 5s.ss 55 . 00.o 5o.5s sceeasm .5 ss 00. 00.5 55 00. oo.s 00s 5s. ss.s x55 .s z .05 secs 2 .0.5 secs 2 .05 secs - onaoH I A OHMB I A dance I A anmwQMD .QSOCM A on» how moHanho> 05 how mucoocoamoh no mucoocoamoa onso homes: one .mGOHp m one .ons .Hmpop 59 es>oo sameness .mcwezaa.ws msm mm peso sHhm ma massage: mewsson spo Hos—05.3.5 ssh Hmsomhom poo sum no oHsm owcomo coneso ssom wssssssm so om Hmaooom om Hwooq owes Hom no pogons< no o spuHm go o oHHno no scseom cocoon £64 Hom omaoso coo owswno mom summon mom monouszo aspen m nuHoo: aspen >oo umz aspen >oo oos mspom hopes aspen moossmsm mspom esss esse5 cm can aspen .55 .45 .55 .N5 .H5 .05 .5s .04 .5s 00‘ .54 .44 .54 .No .Hd .04 .55 0mm .55 com .55 .s5 .55 .55 .H5 .05 ”mm mm .55 oQN A.psoeo--.5s osmow sasnseess ss so.5 55.5o 55 o0.5 5s.55 00s 5o.5 5o. 55 .05 ss 5s.o so.55 55 5s.5 55.ss 00s 0s.5 5s.0 essence 55 .5o ss 55.5 o5.55 55 so.5 55.55 00s 5s.5 s5.55 scopes mean on .5o ss 50.5 5s.05 55 55.5 55.55 00s 55.5 s0.05 asceeoo mono em .5o ss s5.5 55.s5 55 5s.5 5s.s5 00s 5o.5 ss.s5 senses once as .oo ss ss.5 5s.55 55 50.5 55.55 00s s5.5 s5.55 ceoaeco seas so .5o ss 55.5 55.so 55 5o.5 55.55 00s 55.5 5s.55 5asnseass 55 .so ss 55.5 o5.5s 55 55.5 55.ss 00s 5o.o 55.5s saoseoo 5: .5o ss 5o.s 55.s 55 55. 55.s 00s 55. 55.s assess 505 .5o 3 5s.s 55.s 55 oo.s 55.s 00s oo.s s5.s assess 52 .3 5s 50.5 s5.5 ss 00.5 00.5 s5 55.s 55.5 oescesacsss 55 .oo s5 55. o5.5 5s 55. 55.5 o5 55. 00.5 uses5ons5 55 .55 5 5.. 5.5 e. 5.. 5.5 s .5. e... a .5 H H H H o 5 . 55.s aseo 5: . OM ON H 00 M O# NH H 0” N OF hH-H QNoN fiHO>< m: .0“ s.....0--.5s asass APPENDIX B Research Instruments 1. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. Attitudes Toward Education Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Personal Questionnaire - HP Attitudes Toward Blind Persons DefinitiOns of Disability APPENDIX B ' Instrumentation B-l' Attitudes Toward Education NC). Location Male Group Female Date EDUCATION SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about education. We all think differently about schools and education. ‘ Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are; also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel.about your marking of the statement. Please mark ‘this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 1. The goals of education should be dictated by children‘s interests and needs as well as by the larger demands-of ‘ society. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree ‘ 2. Disagree u. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at-all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly lk>subject is more important than the personalities of- the pupils. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree N. Strongly agree About how strongly do you- feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly QC). E. D. Scflnools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and arithmetic: the three R's. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree fl. Strongly agree .About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly U. Very strongly The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship between a child who needs direction, guidance, and control and a teacher who is an eXpert supplying direction, guidance, and control. 1. Strongly disagree ‘ 3. Agree 2. Disagree ‘ b. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Teachers, like university professors, should have academic freedom--freedom to teach what they think is right and best. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4 h. Strongly agree Imout how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly a. Very strongly lo. l. ‘Strongly disagree 3. 3 E.D. The backbone of the school curriculum is 'subJect matter; activities are useful mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 21. Not strongly at all - 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly H. Very strongly Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. Agree 2. Disagree' N Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly N. Very strongly The traditional moral standards of our culture should not Just be accepted; they should be examined and tested . in solving the present problems of students. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree ' ‘ u Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly N. Very strongly, No. 10. 11. u , E.D. Learning is eXperimental; the child should be taught to test alternatives before accepting any of them. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree N. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly N. Very strongly The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. l. Strongly disagree . 3. Agree 2. Disagree u. Strongly agree 'About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The true view of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly No. 12. 13. A . 5 E.D. One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interests of children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree u. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all - 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly h. Very strongly ' The curriculum should be made up of an orderly sequence of subjects that teach to all students the best of our cultural heritage. . l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree H. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? . 1. Not strongly at all .3. Fairly strongly 1”. 2. Not very strongly u. Very strongly Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well-established standards. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree H. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly fl. Very strongly No. 15. l6. l7. 6 E.D. Education and educational institutions must be sources of social ideas; education must be a social program undergoing continual reconstruction. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree N. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all — 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly a. Very strongly Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree . H. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? '1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Children should be allowed more freedom than they usually get in the execution of learning activities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly N. Very strongly No. l8. 19. 20. Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than they usually get. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly U. Very strongly Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knowledge. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at al 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly In a democracy, teachers should help students understand not only the meaning of democracy but also the meaning of the ideologies of other political systems. 1° Strongly disagree 3. Agree '2. Disagree . A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-2. Survey of Interpersonal Values SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES LEONARD v. GORDON NO LOCALITY MALE FEMALE GROUP (Please indicateTV ' DIRECTIONS In this booklet are statements representing things that peeple consider to be important to their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do: Examine each set. Within each set, find the one statement of the three which represents what you consider to be mpg; important to you. Put an "X" in the space beside that statement in the column headed M (for.mp§§). Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which‘ggg of these statements represents what you consider to be least important to you. Put an "I" in the space beside that statement in the column headed L (for lgggt). For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is mpg; important to you, one statement as representing what is least important to you, and you will leave one state- =gent unmarked. EXAMPLE: 3 MORE LESS a. X To have a good hot meal at noon. b. To get a good nights sleep. c. X To get plenty of fresh air. Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that "To get plenty of fresh air" is the most important to you. You would put an "X" in the space in the column headed M (for £19319) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done, in. the example. You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents something that is lggpp important to you. Suppose that "To have a hot meal at noon" is the least important to you. You would put an "X" in the space in the column headed L (for 1.33333) next to this state- ment. Notice that this has been done in the example. . You would leave the remaining statement unmarked. ‘ In some cases it may be difficult to decide which state— ment to mark. Make the best decision that you can. This is ’ not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark gply one M {most} choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set. Turn this booklet over and begin, l. 2. 3. h. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 12.V " 13. IL. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. MOST LEAST To be free to do as I choose. .To have others agree with me. To make friends with the unfortunate. To be in a position of not having to follow orders. To follow rules and regulations closely. To have peOple notice what I do. To hold an important job or office. To treat everyone with extreme kindness. To do what is accepted and prOper. To have people think of me as being important. To have complete personal freedom. To know that peOple are on my side. To follow social standards of conduct. To have people interested in my well being. To take the lead in making group decisions. To be able to do pretty much as I please. To be in charge of some important project. To work for the good of other people. To associate with people who are well known. To attend strictly to the business at hand. To have a great deal of influence. ' 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 31.. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. #0. #1. #2. MOST LEAST To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To To be known by name to a great many peOple. do things for other peOple. work on my own without direction. follow a strict code of conduct.' be in a position of authority. have peOple around who will encourage me. be friends with the friendless. have people do good turns for me. be known by people who are important. be the one who is in charge. conform strictly to the rules. have others show me that they like me. be able to live my life exactly as I wish. do my duty. I have others treat me with understanding. be the leader of the group I'm in. have people admire what I do. be independent in my work. have peOple act considerately toward me. have other people work under my direction. bpend my time doing things for others. #3- 4h- #5. L6. #7. A8. #9- 50- ' 51. 52. 53. 5h- 55. 56. 57. 53. 59. _ 60.‘ 61. 62. 63. MOST III III III III III III III III III III III III III' Ill be able to lead my own life. ' contribute a great deal to charity. have people make favorable remarks about me. be a person of influence. be treated with kindness. always maintain the highest moral standards. be praised by other people. be relatively unbound by social conventions. work for the good of society. have the affection of other people. do things in the approved manner. go around doing favors for other people. be allowed to do whatever I want to do. be regarded as the leader. do what is socially correct. have others approve of what I do. make decisions for the group. share my belongings with other people. be free to come and go as I want to. help the poor and needy. show respect to my superiors. 6A. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 7h- 75- 76. 77. ‘73. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 8h. MOST‘ ' LEAST To To To To To To To To To To To To “TO To To To To To To ”To To be given compliments by other peOple. be in a very responsible position do what is considered conventional. be in charge of a group of peOple. make all of my own decisions. receive encouragement from others. be looked up to by other people. be quick in accepting others as friends. direct others in their work. be generous toward other peOple. be my own boss. have understanding friends. be selected for a leadership position. be treated as a person of some importance. have things pretty much my own way. have other people interested in me. have proper and correct social manners. be sympathetic with those who are in trouble. be very pOpular with other peOple. be free.from having to obey rules. be in a position to tell others what to do. _\ 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. MOST LEAST 10 To IO To To To always do what is morally right. go out of my way to help others. have people willing to offer me a helping hand. have peOple admire me. always do the approved thing. be able to leave things lying around if I wish. APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-3 Personal Questionnaire No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part has to do with your contacts with schools and education, and what you know about education. .You may have had considerable. contact with schools and education, or you may know a great deal about education. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with schools or education and may have never thought much about it at all. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important. If you know very little or nothing about schools or education, your answers are important. If you know a great deal about them, your answers are important. The second part of the questionnainehas to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to every question. 165 No. PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill in the answer as requested. 165 SECTION I: Experiences with Schools and Education Below_are listed several different kinds of schools or educational divisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education, which one have you had the most_professional or work eXperience with, or do you ‘ have the most knowledge about? This does not refer to your own education but to your professional work or related eXperiences with education. Please answer by circling the number of the group you select. Circle only one. Elementary School (Grade School) . . . . 1 Secondary School (High School) . . . . . -College or University . . . . . . . 3 Other Types (Please Specify) A I have had-no such eXperience . . . . . 5 Which other groups, in addition to the one indicated above, have you also had some professional or work eXperience with? Please circle the number of each additional group with which you have had some experience. Elementary School (Grade School) . . . . 1 Secondary School (High School) . . . . . 2 College orUniversity . . . . . . . . . 3 Other Types (Please specify) A I have had no such experience . . . . . 5 No. 2 PQ 3. The following questions have to do with additional kinds of contacts you have had with schools or education. Please circle the number of each eXperience that applies .to you. Be sure and circle the number of every experience that applies to you. I know little or nothing about education . . . . l I have read or heard a little about schools and education . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . 2 I have studied about schools and education through reading, movies, lectures, or observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '3 A neighbor of mine works in education . . . . . A A friend of mine works in education . . . . . . 5 'Some relative works in education . . . . . . . 6 My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband) or child works in education in any position, professional or non-professional) . . . . . . . 7 I have worked in education, as a teacher, administrator, counselor, volunteer, etc. . . . 8 Other (Please specify) 9 If on the preceding three questions you indicated that you have had no personal experience with any kind of education, please skip Questions #A through #7. If you indicated that you have had experience with one or more of the levels of education listed, please answer Questions #A through #7. ‘ ' 165 No. 3 PQ A. About how much have you worked in schools or educational settings? Please circle the number of the one best answer. Less than three months . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between three and six months . . . . . . . . . 2 Between six months and one year . . . . . . . 3 Between one and three years '. . . . . . . . I 4 Between three and five years . . . . . . . . . 5 Between five and ten years . . . . . . . 6 Over ten years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Over fifteen years . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5. If you have ever worked in education, about what percent of your income was derived from such work? Less than 10% . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 25% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Between 25 and 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 50 and 75% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Between 75 and 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6. If you have ever worked in education, how have you generally felt about it? I definitely have disliked it . . . . . . . . l I have not liked it very much . . . . . . . . 2 y I have liked it somewhat . . . . . . . . . . . 3 I have definitely enjoyed it . . . . . . . . . A 165 No. '8. 9. 10. 165 A ‘ PQ If you have ever worked in education for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? I do not know what other jobs were available or acceptable . . . . . .~. . . . . . . . . . . 1 No other job waswavailable . . . . . . . . . . 2 Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me I O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 3 Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I O O O u Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me O O O O O l O O O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O 5 SECTION 2: Personal Information How old are you? (Write age in box) Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your youth (that is, up to the age of 15 or 16)? Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 1 Country Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 City Suburb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. A Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family) been employed during the past three years? Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Country Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 City . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 a City suburb O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O NO. 11. 12.' 13. 1“. 165 Where have you mainly liygg during the past three Country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Country Town . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . City Suburb . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . What is your marital status? Married . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . Single . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Divorced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Widowed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Separated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PQ ~years? N U1-='LA) How many childre do you have? (Please write number in box) , - Please answer either A or B, whichever applies best to your present situation. Please read both choices, then answer only one. A. If you are self-supportipg, about what is your total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married, the total yearly income in the family). Include extra income from any regular sources such as dividends, insurance, etc. Please write the total in the box. B. If you are not self-supporting (or if you are married, if your family is not self- supporting), what is the approximate total yearly income before taxes of the persons who mainly provide your support (that is, parents, relatives or others). Make the best estimate you can. 1> No. 6 PO 15. According to your answer to Question 1“, about how does‘ your income compare with that of most peOple in the total community where you live? Much lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About the same . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 5 MuCh higher 0 O I O .0 0 O O O O O O O O O O I 16. How many brothers have you? (Please write number in bOX) O O O O O 0 I O O O O O O O O O O C O 17. How many sisters have you? (Please write number in box) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . 18. About how does (or did) your father's income ‘ compare with that of most people in the community in which he lives (or lived)? Much lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . About the same 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O . O 0 Higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.:me Mlleh higher 0 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O 19. What is your religion? Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Protestant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N JeWiSh O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 None 0 O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O WED.) Other (PleaSe specify) 165 No. 7 PQ 20. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? ' I have no religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fairly important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . A 21. During an "average" work day, you probably have occasion to talk and make contact with other adult persons where you are employed. Estimate about what percent of these contacts and conversations are with peOple you feel pprsonally close to, whom you consider to be close friends, or that are relatives of yours. None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l I do not usually talk or make contact with other adult persons where I am employed . . . 2 Less than 10% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Between 10 and 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Between 30 and 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. 5 Between 50 and 70% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Between 70 and 90% . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 More than 90% . . . . . . . . . . . . .-. 8 22. How important is it to you to work with people you feel personally close to? Not at all important . . . . . . . . . . . a . 1 Not very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fairly important . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Very important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 165 No. I 8 PQ 23. Now please consider all of the personal contacts you have- with peeple when you are not at work. Would you estimate about what percent of your contacts ppart from working hours are spent with peOple whom you know because of your 19p; that is, those who work at the same job, trade, or profession, or in the same place that you do, or that you otherwise contact in the pursuit of your job. None . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ._. . . Less than 10% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 10 and 30% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 30 and 50% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 50 and 70% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Between 70 and 90% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NmthNl-J More than 90% .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2A. Which social class do you believe you are in? Lower. . . . .-. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lower Middle . . . .‘. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O own-w Upper Upper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25. Which social class do you believe your father is (or was) in? ' Lower. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Lower Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper Middle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upper. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O mmzw Upper Upper O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 165 No. 9 PQ 26. About how much education do you have? (Circle only one) 3 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . l 6 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . 3 12 years of school or less . . . . . . . . . . . A Some college or univerSity . . . . . . . . . 5 A college or university degree . . . . . . 6 Some graduate work beyond the first degree . . 7 One or more advanced degrees . . . . . . . . . 8 Other (Please note number of years of study or diploma obtained . , ). . . . . 9 27. About how does your education compare with that of most peOple? Much less than most . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 1 Less than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 About average . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 More than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Much more than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 28. About how does (or did) your father's education compare with that of most peOple in his time? Much less than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Less than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. 2 About average . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . . . . 3 More than most . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Much more than most . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 5 165 No. 10 PQ 29. What.type of living arrangement do you have? Rent a house . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rent an apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Rent a room (meals in a restaurant, etc.) . . 3. Purchase room and board (rooming house, etc) A Own an apartment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Own a house. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Other (Please specify) . . 7- 30. Please answer either A or B. Please read both before answering. A. rIf you are renting the house in which you live, about how much money per month do you pay . for rent? (Write amount in box) . . . . . B. If you own the houSe in which you live (house, apartment, or other), about how much money- per month do you believe you could rent the house for? (Write amount in box) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31. In every community each group (for example, schools, businessmen, labor, the local government) has a different job to do for the community. In your community, would you say that the schools are going an excellent, good, fair, or poor job? How about businessmen? Labor? The local government? The doctors and hospitals? The church? (Please circle the appropriate number to indicate how you feel each job is being done. ) Please answer for each group. A. Elementary Schools Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . .6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Good . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . A Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 165 No. 11 PQ 31. Continued from Page 10. The instructions on the previous_.» page apply to the following sections, B through E. B. Secondary Schools Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17-LA) GOOd O O O O O O O 0‘ O O O O O O C O 0 Excellent 0 O I O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 U1 'C. Universities Do-not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 3 Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3. . 5 D. Businessmen Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . Fair . . . . . . s . . . . . . . . . . Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Una-wan Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Labor_ Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GOOd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \J'l-II’UU Excellent I O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 165 No. - 12 PQ 31. Continued from Page ll. The instructions on the previous page apply to the following sections, F through I. F. Local Government Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 'Poor . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. . GOOd O 0 O O O O O O - O O O O O O O O I O mzwmw Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G. National Government Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N Poor 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Fair 0 O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O O O O O GOOd O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O mzw Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H. Health Services (Doctors and Hospitals) Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g. Fair 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O tWN GOOd 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Excellent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . U1 I. Churches Do not know . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Goad O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \fltWNI-J Excellent 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 165 No. 13 ‘ PQ 32. How long have you lived in your present community? Less than 1 year . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 From 1 to 2 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 2 From 3 to 6 years _. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 From 7 to 10 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Over 10 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . '5 33. Have you changed your residency (from one community to another) during the past two years? Please circle the correct number. ' Yes 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 1 NO 0 O O I. O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 3H. Have you changed your employment during the past two years? Please circle the correct number. Yes 0 O O O O O O I O O O O I O O 0 O O O O O O 1 NO 0 O o o 0' o O O o 0 O O 0 O O O O O O o O O 2 35. About how many times have you changed residency (communities) during the past 10 years? Please circle the correct number. None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 " 3 Times 0 o o o) o o o o o o o. o o ’0 o o o o 3 4 - 6 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u 7 — 10 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5‘ Over 10 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 165 No. 14 PQ 36. About how many times have you changed Jobs during the past 10 years? Please circle the correct number. None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l 1 Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 - 3 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 A - 6 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 7 - 10 Times . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 5 Over 10 Times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 37. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title or name of your Job and the nature of your work. 38. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? Please circle the correct number. I have no religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Seldom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 2 Sometimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Usually . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Almost always . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 39. Health eXperts say adding certain chemicals to drinking , water results in less decay in peOple's teeth. If you could add these chemicals to your water with little cost to you, would you be willing to have the chemicals added? Please circle the correct number. Probably no H NO 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 maybe 0 o o o o o o o o o o ’ e o o o o o o o o 3 Yes '0 I O O O O C O O O O O O 0 O .0 O O O O u 165 No. NO. 41. 42. 165 15 - PQ 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 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . .5me Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOple. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or rather, that they are doing right? ' It is always right . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is probably all right . . . . . . . . . . It is usually wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 It is always wrong . . . . . . . . . . . . . A PeOple have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be en- couraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually it creates new Jobs and raises the standard of living." Disagree Strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Disagree Slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Agree Slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Agree Strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A No. “3. an. 45. 165 l6 PQ Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an important Job. What is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good Job." Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . Slightly agree . . . . .2. . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A» Some peOple believe that more local government income. should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What.are your feelings on this? Strongly disagree. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A, Some peOple believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? Strongly disagree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Slightly disagree .'. .-. . . . . . . .‘. . 2 Slightly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Strongly agree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A- No. A6. “70 A8. A9. 165 17 PQ People have different ideas about planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? Answer only one. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents 0 o o o 0‘. o o o o o o o 1 Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local governmental unit . . . . . . . . . 2 Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government . . . 3‘ Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? Please circle the number of your choice. I find it very difficult to change. . . . . . l I find it slightly difficult to change. . . . 2 I find it somewhat easy to change my ways . . 3 I find it very easy to change my ways . . . . A_ I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly . . . . . . . .i. . . . . . . _l Agree slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ 2 Disagree slightly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Disagree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ A I like the kind of work that lets me do things about the , same way from one week to the next. Circle the number of your choice. ‘ Agree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agree slightly . .'. . . . ._. . . . . .'. . Disagree Slightly O C O O O O O O C 0 O O O O tWNH Disagree strongly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . No. 50. 51. 52. 53. 15A A good son will try A parents even though another part of the Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly 18 PQ to find work that keeps him near his it means giving up a good Job in country. We should be as helpful we are to our friends. Disagree strongly Disagree slightly Agree slightly . Agree strongly tWNH N 3 A Planning only makes a person unhappy because your plans hardly ever work out anyway. Agree strongly Agree slightly Disagree slightly Disagree strongly Which of the following requisites do you consider most important-to make your life more happy and satisfactory important choice. in the future? Nothing . . . . . More money . . . More friends . . Better Job . . . Good health . . . Other (please Circle the single, most mmtw l 2 No. ‘ l9 PQ 5A. What do you think you can do to make this possible? Please answer one of the two alternatives below. Nothing Please specify 165 APPENDIX B Instrumentation EPA Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons . . No. Location Male Group Female Date HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE Instruc tions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about physically. handicapped persons. We all think differently about persons with physical handicaps. Here you may eXpress how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers folenwing each statement. These answers indicate how much you' agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of- your answer‘in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in frontgf the answer , you select. ' ‘ v —v 1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree ' 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. .Fairly strongly 2. th very strongly ' A. Very strongly 2. Physically handicapped persons are Just as intelligent as non-handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? in Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly ATDP Iiaxuiicapped people are usually easier to get along with than other peOple . l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. _Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 11. Not strongly at all . 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Most physically handicapped peOple.feel sorry for themselves. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. -Not strongly at all ' 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are the same as anyone else. ~ 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly I A. Very strongly No. 3 ‘ , ATDP There shouldn't be special schools for physically handicapped children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly - A. Very strongly It would be best for physically handicapped persons to live and work in special communities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is up to the government to take care of physically handicapped persons. 1. Strongly disagree ‘ 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly END. 9. 10. ll. ATDP Most physically handicapped peOple worry a great deal. 1. . Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly _ A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people should not be expected to meet the same standards as non-handicapped peOple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all . 3L Fairly strongly 2. Not yery strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped peOple are as happy as non- handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree ’ 3. Agree 2. Disagree . A. Strongly agree Amout how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 12. 13. 1A. 5 ATDP Smmrely physically handicapped peOple are no harder m>get along with than those with minor handicaps. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to lead a normal life. 1. Strongly disagree - 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly ‘You should not eXpect too much from physically handicapped peOple. l» Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all ' 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 15. '16. 17.. 6 ATDP Physically handicapped peOple tend to keep to themselves much of the time. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly ’ A. Very strongly Physically handicapped peOple are more easily upset' than non-handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3 Agree 2. Disagree A Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all . 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped persons cannot have a normal social life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree. 2. Disagree . A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 18. '19. 20. 7 ATDP Mostpmysically handicapped people feel that they are not as good as other peOple. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Insagree A.- Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly I A. Very strongly You have to be careful of what you say when you are with physically handicapped peOple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree . A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly‘ 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped peOple are often grouchy. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree . A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1”. lNot strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. . Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-S Personal Questionnaire - HP No. , Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP This questionnaire deals with your contacts with physically handicapped persons, and what you know about them. Perhaps you have had much contact with physically handicapped persons, or you may have studied about them. On the other. hand, you may have had little or no contact with physically handicapped persons, and may have never thought much about. them at all. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all persons are important, so even if you know very little or nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers arewimportant. 165 No. l PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (as answers) or fill in the answer as requested. 1. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below. only one. 1. 2. UT-ll'w blind ‘ - 6. partially blind deaf (and deaf-mute) 7. partially deaf 8 crippled or amputated limbs 9. In respect to these various handicaps, which have you had the most actual experience with. by circling the number of the group you select. Please answer Circle disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) spastic (or cerebral palsy) speech disorders none Which other groups have you also had some eXperience with? Please circle the number of each additional group with which you have had some experience. 1. zoom U1 blind 6. partially blind deaf (and deaf-mute) 7. partially deaf 80 crippled or amputated limbs 9. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) spastic (or cerebral palsy) speech disorders none #9. If on the preceding question you indicated that you have had no personal eXperience with physically handicapped persons (by circling response No. 9, please skip questions #3 through If you indicated that you have had experience with one or more of the above handicapping conditions, please answer questions #3 through #9. 165 No. 165 2 PQ-HP The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with physically_handicapped persons. Please circle the number of each experience that applies to you. If more than one eXperience applies, please circle a number for each experience that applies. I have read or heard a little about physically handicapped persons . . . . . . . . . . l I have studied about physically handicapped persons through reading,movies, lectures, or observations . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 A friend is physically handicapped . . . . . 3 Some relative is physically handicapped . . . A I have personally worked with physically handi- capped persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. . . . . . . . 5 My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband) or child is physically handicapped. . 6 I, myself, have a physical handicap. (Briefly, please indicate the kind of handicap) 7 Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with physically handicapped persons, about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. Less than 10 occasions . . . . . I. . . 1 Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . 2 Between 50 and 100 occasions . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . . A More than 500 occasions . . . . . . . . 5 No. .165 3 PQ—HP VWmn you have been in contact with physically handicapped peOple, how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being with these handicapped persons? I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty . . . 1' I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty. . . 2 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts, but with some inconvenience . . . . 3 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience A During your contact with physically handicapped persons, did you gain materially in any way through these con— tacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain . . . . . . . . . . 1 Yes, I have been paid for working with handi- capped persons . . . . . . . . . . 2 Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain . . . . . . 3 Yes, I have both been paid and received academic e e e e u ' credit. . . . . . . . . . If you have never been paid for working with handicapped persons go on to the next question. If you have been paid, about what percent of your income was derived from con- tact wdth physically handicapped persons during the actual.period when working with them? Less than 10% . . . 1 Between 10 and 25% . . . . . . 2 Between 25 and 50%. . . . . . .. . . . . 3 Between 50 and 75%. . . . . . . . . A- More than'75% . '. . . . . . . . . . . 5 No. A PQ-HP 8. How have you generally felt about your experiences with- handicapped persons? ' I definitely have disliked it. . . . . . . l I have not liked it very much . . . '. . . 2 I have liked it somewhat . . . . . . . 3- I have definitely enjoyed it . . . . . . A 9. If you have ever worked with the physically handicapped for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what Opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead, that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a Job? I do not know what other Jobs.were available or acceptable . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 No other 10b was available. . . . . . . . 2. Other Jobs available were not at all acceptable to me. O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O . 3 Other Jobs available were not quite acceptable to me e e e e e e o e e e e e e e u ' Other prs available were fully acceptable to me O O O O O O O I O O. O O O O O S 165 No. 10. 11. I65 5 , PQ-HP The following questions should be answered by all persons, regardless of whether or not they have had any per- sonal contact with persons who are physically handicapped. Have you had any eXperie ce with mentally retarded persons? Considering al of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. ~ Less than 10 occasions . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . ‘ 2 Between SO-and 100 occasions . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions. . . . A- More than 500 occasions. 5 Have you had any eXperience with emotionally ill persons? Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with emotionally ill persons, about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer. Less than.lO occasions . . . . . . . . . 1 Between 10 and 50 occasions . . . . . . . 2 Between 50 and 100 occasions . . . . . . . 3 Between 100 and 500 occasions . . . . .' . A. More than 500 occasions. . . . . . . . . 5 APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-6 Attitudes Toward Blind Persons No. Location Male Group Female Date BLIND PERSONS SCALE instructions: Given below are 20 statements of Opinion about visually handi- capped persons. We all think differently about blind individuals. Here you may eXpress how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers follow- ing each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statenents. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the gumber_jn front of the answer you selec . You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front gf the answer you select. l. A blind person might as well accept the fact that blindness makes peeple pretty helpless. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all. 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 2. There are things worse than being blind. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree , 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly . A. Very strongly 3. Blind peOple are constantly worried about the future. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree - A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly N0. 42- ATBP A. Blind peOpie are more easily upset than sighted people. l. Strongly disagree I 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 5. it's difficult to understand the blind because they keep so much to themselves. ' l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree , A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 5. Most blind peOple feel that they are worthless. l. Strongly disagree ~ 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 7. Most blind people are dissatisfied with themselves. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly NO. 8. 9. l0. ll. -3- ATBP Blind peOple are used to failing in most of the things they do. i. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly You should not expect too much from a blind person. i. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strorg ly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Blindness does not change the person any more than any other physical handicap. l. Strongly disagree ' 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree {About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly A blind person can’t afford to talk back to peOple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly -A~ ATBP NOq l2. it makes me feel a little guilty to know that i can see and others cannot. l. Strongly disagree 3; Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly l3. Many blind peOpie are economically independent. l. Strongly disagree ' 2. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 1A. Acceptance of blindness is the same thing as acceptance of anything else in life. i. Strongly disagree I 3. Agree 2. Disagree- . A. Strongly agree .About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly l5. I feel that blindness is as hard to bear as complete paralysis. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly N0. -5- ATBP l6. The blind adult is not quite as mature or “grown-up” as the sighted adult. i. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly l7. My attitude towards a blind person would be based more upon his personality than upon the fact that he is blind. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 18. it is very difficult to make a blind person fichange his mind once he has decided on something. i. Strongly disagree . 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly l9. Blindness has little or no effect upon intelligence. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly .# N0 9 66- ATBP 20. .A blind person is constantly worried about what might happen to him. i. Strongly disagree 3 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? i. Not strongly at all 3.‘ Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX' B ' Instrumentation B-7 Definitions of Disability DEFINITIONS What is meant by "physical handicap." The words "physically handicapped" will be used often in the queStions and statements that follow. Where these words are used, they will include persons with any of the following handicaps: l. I blind persons--those who have no useful sight at all. partly blind persons--those who have-some sight but have trouble reading and getting about even with glasses. deaf persons--those who have no useful hearing at all. _ partly deaf persons--those who have some hearing but have trouble understanding other persons even with a hearing aid. cripples or amputees--those who have arms or legs that have been paralyzed or removed even though they may be of some use with artificial hands or legs. spastic (or cerebral palsy)--those who have poor control and coordination of their leg, arm, and head movements. Movements are often Jerky and speech hard to under- stand. _disfigured--those who have been obviously damaged about the face,.such as with burns or scars, so that the face has been changed. APPENDIX C Variables, Administration Procedures, Code Book, Code Forms 1. 2. 3. A. 5. 6. Basic Variables of the Study - Administration Procedures Code Book Special Instructions for Scoring Kansas Data Data Transcription Sheet FCC I and FCC II Variable - Computer Print-' Out Code Form Administrator's Summary Sheet Procedures for Producing Item Directionality APPENDIX C C-l Basic Variables of the Study A. 565 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL Attitudes Toward Educatiog 1 Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, IO, 11, 12, 13, l4, 18: 19 ~ 9233.123. Raw Score total Adjusted t0tal score (dlchotomized) Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19 - Intensity Raw Score total ~ Adjusted total score (dichOtomized) Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 20 - gontent Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, l6, 17, 20 - Intensity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Contact with Education (Q'aire) 1 Levels of education eXperienced Q'aire, Item 1 (primary contact) Q'aire, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. kinds of) Varieties of contact with education Q'aire, Item 3 Amount of contact {work} with education Q'aire, Item 4 Personal gain through working in education Q‘aire, Item 5 (%.Cf income) Alternative opportunities available Q‘aire, Item 7 (refers to other possible employment) Enjoyment of contact Q'aire, Item 6 Aid to Education ~ Financial (Q'aire) Item 44 (local) Item 45 (federal or national) D. G. 565 2 BASIC VARIABLES ,-, INTERNATIONAL Education Plannipg (Q'aire) Item 46' Interpersonal Values - Gordon Scale scores: Support scores: Conformity scores: Recognition (comparative score) scOres: Independence scores: Benevolence (asset score) scores: Leadership'(gomparative score) oxu1euuiubw t'inwom Demographic, S.E.§., Other Control_9ata (All from Q'aire) 1 Education (self-amount), Item 26 2 Occupation (specific), Item 37 3 Income and rental (S. E. Class) ‘ Item 14 (income - yearly, self-family) Item 30 (rental) ’ 4 Age: Item 8 5 Sex: Front sheet of questionnaire 6 Marital status: Item 12 7 Number of children: Item 13 8 Size Of family: Item 16 (brothers - do not use) Item 17 (sisters - do not use) Items 16 and 17 (siblings) 9 Housing (type of), Item 29 10 MObility: Residenpy, Items 32, 33 and 35 Card 4, Col. 25 Occupational, Items 34 and 36 ll Rural-Urban Status: Items 9, 10 and 11 12 Employment status - current: Item 37 Satisfaction with institutions (Q'aire) l Satisfaction with elementary schools Item 31-A 2 ,Satisfaction with secondary schools Item 31-B 3 Satisfaction with universities Item 31-C 565 3 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL 4 Satisfaction with businessmen Item 31-D 5 Satisfaction with labor Item 31-E 6 Satisfaction with local government Item 31-F ’ 7 Satisfaction with national government Item 31-G 8 Satisfaction with health services Item 31-H 9 Satisfaction with churches Item 31-I Self-Statements (Q'aire) Comparative income status - self: Item 15 Comparative income - father: Item 18 Comparative social class - self: Item 24 Comparative social class - father: Item 25 Comparative education - self: Item 27 Comparative education - father: Item 28 OlU'l‘firi-J Religiousity Questionnaire (Q'aire) 1 Religious affiliation: Item 19 2 Perceived importance: Item 20 3 Perceived norm conformity: Item 38 Personalism Questionnaire (Q'aire) l Orientation toward job personalism a Statement of extent of personalism on job: Item 21 b Perceived importance of personal relations: Item 22 2 Diffusion of personal relationships Percent of job-social overlap: Item 23 3 Familialism: Item 50, (Son's work) 4 Other orientation: Altruism: Item 51 Attitudes Toward.Change (Q'aire) 1 Health practices (water): Item 29 2 Child-rearing practices: Item 40 3 Birth control practices: Item 41 565 b . 4 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL Political leadership change: Item 43 Automation: Item 42 Self Conception Item 47 (Perceived self-rigidity) Item 48 (Adherence to rules) Item 49 (JOb regularity and rigidity) Future orientation Item 52 (Planning - personal) Item 53 (Requisites for happiness) Item 54 (Achievement of happiness) Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 1 2 Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1-20 - Content Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1-20 - Intensity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Contact with Handicapped Persons 1 Kinds of handicapped persons experienced P.Q.-HP, Item 1 (most contact) P.Q.-HP, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. of) Varieties of relationship with handicapped P.Q.-HP, Item 3 (Frequency of contact with physically handicapped P.Q.-HP, Item 4 Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicapped P.Q.-HP, Item 5 Personal gain through working with handicapped persons P.Q.-HP, Item 6 (experienced gain) P.Q.-HP, Item 7 (%.of income) Alternative Opportunities available P.Q.-HP, Item 9 (refers to other_possible employment) Enjoyment of contact with physically handicapped P.Q.-HP, Item 8 Frequency of contact with mentally retarded persons P.Q.-HP, Item 10 4 Frequency of contact with emotionally disabled persons P.Q.-HP, Item 11 APPENDIX C C-2 Administration Procedures PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION: CROSS-C'LTURAL ATTITUDE STUDY yi’ '1' John E. Jordan Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan December, 1964 The specific instructions will vary in detail from nation to nation. However, the following outline is presented on the basis of my experience thus far with the questionnaires and attitude scales. 1. Arrange for a meeting room and/or place. The respond- ents should have a table (or similar surface) on which to write and ample room between respondents (in group administration) to minimize influencing each other. After introducing oneself (or being introduced), state briefly the following kind of rationale for the study: ”This is an international study of attitudes toward education; part of it deals with education in gen- eral and part of it deals with the education of handicapped persons. Each part is clearly stated. Remember, in a study like this, there are no right or wrong answers to the attitude questions. We want you to answer howgyou feel about certain things. Therefore, we do not want your name on the question- naire. Please answer quickly, with your first idea first, and do not spend a lot of time thinking about each item. Remember this is an international study and all the peOple in the other countries will be answering in the same manner. If there is no answer that exactly fits what you would like to answer, please choose the alternative nearest to your desired answer. Please answer all items. 3. If you have any questions as you proceed, please raise your hand and we will come to you and dis- cuss it individually so as not to disturb the other peOple. When we have all completed the questionnaires, I will be glad to discuss the ‘ study in more detail if you desire. Thank you very much for taking time to c00perate in the study." Distribute the page of definitions. "We will now distribute to you a page of definitions of certain handicapping conditions which will be referred to in some of the questionnaires. We will all take a few minutes to read these so we will all have the same idea about the same words. You may refer to these later if you so desire. Also, we want you to put a number in the upper left hand corner of the page like this (show them what you mean). Since we do not want you to put your name on the questionnaire, you will use this num- ber. In this manner no one will know your answers. We must have your number and group (special educa- tion, teacher, business, etc.) on each question- naire so we can put all the answers of one person together at the end." Here the respondents "number off" and see that no two persons have the same number. Remember if two people in a group have the same number, the data cannot be analyzed. Distribute the attitude4§cales and questionnaires in the following order. In group administration be sure to pass out only one instrument at a time. Order of Administration of Instruments . Page of definitions . Education Scale Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Handicapped Persons Scale Personal Questionnaire: HP ONU'IDWNH O Distribute the Education Scale. Have the respondent fill out data on the top of scale: (1) Number, (2) Sex, (3) Location, (4) Group, and (5) Date. Either instruct the respondents to read silently the instructions or the administrator may read them to the group; this is left to each country to do in the manner they consider most appropriate. Our experience shows that if the instruc- tions are well understood on this first instrument, the other instruments are easily understood. When the respondents have completed the Education Scale, collect them and distribute the next one as indicated above in Point Number Four. Proceed in a similar manner until all five instruments have been completed. If situations arise where the instruments are left with the respondent (i.e., either in an office or to take home), try to impress on them the order in which to take them (e.g., number them 1-2-3-4-5 in the upper right hand corner) and not to look at them ahead of time. Do not leave instruments with respondents except when absolutely necessary and in such cases mark on them later to indicate they were given in this manner. Respondent identification. See discussion under Points Numbered 3 and 6 above. Remember we need a minimum of 50 persons per each of the four groups: (1) special educa- tion, (2) teacher-primary and secondary, (3) workers- blue and white collar, and (4) employers-business, com- merce, industry. We would prefer to have more so secure as many as you can conveniently locate up to 100 per group. Each of these respondents must fill out all five instru- ments, using the same respondent number_and group. If either the respondent number or group is omitted or dupli- cated, the data cannot be collated for data analysis! When you have secured enough completed sets of instruments for a "usual size" mailing package in your country, please mail to me rather than waiting to send all of them at one time. In this manner I can have the data scored and tabu- lated for computer processing in an orderly manner. If I receive all the data at one time, it will-be difficult to hire assistants here at the university on any regular basis. Each time you mail a package of data, you should send me a letter describing it so I can keep records. APPENDIX C C-3 Code Book CODE BOOK CROSS CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION: THEIR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS INTERNATIONAL STUDY* John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University August 25, 1965 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code Q_or Q2 will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted. 2. Code i_for a one column no response, or -9 for a two column no response, or -99 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. 3. In each case in the following pages the column to the left con- tains the column number of the IBM card; the second column con- tains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column df the IBM card with an explanation of the code. The fifth colL _umn (recode) is reserved to later indicate recoding after the item count is finished; i.e., after all data is key punched, run the data through the M.S.U. computer (ACT II, FCC, and/or Single-Column Frequency Distributions) to determine the pat- terns of response alternatives to a question. This will indi- cate if regrouping, etc., need to be considered for the item. 4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. 5. In some cases when codes are equal to others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with "same". 6. Under Code, the first number is the questionnaire question alternative and the second number is the actual code which is entered on the data sheets (i.e., 1-4; one I is the question- naire question alternative and‘g is the code). * This code book is specifically for the United States sample thru Card 4. Limited modifications and/or additions are made in certain nations and/Or states. Special instructions are appended.§2£_each study before scoring that sample. . 865 Column:Ques. 1,2,3 Face Sheet 865 Item Detail Nation and Location Page 1-1 Code Recode* UNITED STATES 001 - Mich., Mt. Pleasant 002 - Mich., Cadillac 003 - Mich., Ann Arbor 004 - Mich., Port Huron 005 ~ Mich., Lansing 006 — Mich., Walden WOods 007 - Mich., Flint 008 - Mich., Misc., Kal., Mid. 009 - Kansas, Wichita 010 - Ohio, Tiffin 011 - West Virginia 012 - Kentucky 013 - Georgia LATIN AMERICA 101 - Costa Rica 102 103 104 105 106 EUROPE 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 ASIA 301 302 303 304 AFRICA Colombia Peru Argentina Mexico Surinam England Holland Belgium France YUgoslavia Denmark Germany Israel Japan India Formosa 401 - Kenya 402 - Rhodesia 403 - South Africa CARD 1 Page 1-2 Column-gues. Item Detail Code Recode* 4,5 Face Sheet Group Number 01 - 99 (adminis- Check Special tration) Instructions 6,7 Face Sheet Respondent 01 -.99 Number 8 Face Sheet Sex of 1 - Masculine Respondent 2 - Feminine 9 (Code Occupational - 1 - Code 01 - 09, Rehab., derived Recode Spec. Ed. from anterest 2 - Code 10 - 19, Education Col's group) 3 - Code 20 - 45, Profes- 222,“23, sional, Business, Medical Card 1) 4 - Code 50 - 86, White Col- lar, Blue Collar, Laborer 10 New Occupational l - Teacher, Educable Retarded, Redode (Type A and Type C) (Spec. Ed., 2 - Teacher, Trainable Retarded Rehab. SER)* (Type B) 3 - Teacher, Hearing 4 - Teacher, Vision 5 — Speech Correction 6 - Visiting Teacher (Also Social Worker) 7 - Diagnostician 8 - Other (Professors, Supts., Administrators, etc.) + - Non-teacher 11,12 Face Sheet Deck or Card 01 Number 13,14 Face Sheet Project LATIN AMERICA Director, 01 Felty: Costa Rica location (total - pilot study) and con- 02 Friesen: Peru and tent area Colombia (total) 03 Taylor: Costa Rica * If respondent is not an SER (country study) "educational person", he received a i, 865 CARD 1 Page 1-3 Co]_11rnn-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 13, 14 Face Sheet UNITED STATES (c:<>xitinued) V , 31 Sinha: Ohio (parents- M. R., emot. dist. and normal) 32 Dickie: Kansas (total and blind scale) 33 Weir: Kansas (total and deaf scale) 34 Mader: Michigan (spec- ial educ. - intra) 35 Jordan: Michigan - Mt. Pleasant (Spec. Ed.) ASIA 51 Cessna: Japan (total plus university stu- dents and government employees) EUROPE 71 Boric: Yugoslavia (total) >72 Fabia: France (total) 73 Hansen: Denmark (total) 74 Loring: England (total) 75 Robaye: Belgium (total) 76 Schweizer: Netherlands (total) 77 Kreider: Europe (total) 15'1‘5 Fa ce Sheet (Day of Admin- .01 to 31 istration ' (Use the actual day) 17'18 Face Sheet Month of 01 - January Adminis- 02 - February 'tration 03 - March 865‘ ° Co lumn-Ques . 1 '7 . 18 Face Sheet ( continued) ..- 7' J. 9 , 20 Face Sheet 2 1 Face Sheet 22 , 23 37 Q'aire * SEQ _ 865 page 4. 2 Item Detail Year of Adminis- tration Type of Adminis- stration Occupation of Respon- dent* (Spe- cific) Page 1-4 Code Recode* lO - October 11 - November 12 - December 64 - 1964 65 - 1965 66 - 1966 70 - 1970 l - Group 2 - Self-administered 3 - Interview, individual + - No information (01 — 09) Rehab. & Spec. Ed. 01 - All administrative persons, public and private schools or agencies 02 - Teachers, elem. and secondary academic and vocational 03 - School Special Services (Psych., soc. work, speech, etc.) 04 - University teachers, professors, researchers, specialists, etc. 05 - Medical (Doctors, Den— tists, etc.) 06 - Other professional (Psych., Soc. worker, Speech, etc., not pri- marily in public or private schools) 07 - Para-medical (Nurse, 0.T., R.T., P.T., ect.) 08 - Unskilled Help (Hospital aide, janitor, any non- prof., non-tech. role) 09 - Other Column-gues. . Item Detail 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (continued) of Respon- dent* (Spe- cific) *t'See page 4-2 8655 Eggs Page 1-5 Recode* (10 - 19) Educational personnel #— other than Rehab. and Spec. Ed. 10 - Elementary teachers, (include elem. v.p.'s, counselors, etc.) 11 - Secondary teachers 12 - Guidance and personnel workers (psych., social work, counselor if not elementary) 13 - Other special services (Speech, spec. teacher, audiometric, etc.) 14 - Administrative (elem., sec., central office adm., including elem. principal, sec. v.p. 'and princ., etc., in non-teach.) 15 - University teachers, professors, researchers, specialists, etc. 16 - 19 Open (20 - 29) Medical, other than Rehab. and Spec. Ed. 20 - General practitioners 21 - Surgeons 22 - Psychiatrists or psycho; analysts 23 - Dentists '24 - All other medical spec- ialties 25 - Open 26 - Tech. and Prof.: Nurse, O.T., P.T., R.T., Audio, etc. 27 - Non-tech. and non-prof.: aide, janitor, attendant, etc. 7 28 e 29 Open Columnjgues. Item Detail 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (continued) of Respon- dent* (Spe- cific) * See page 4-2 865 Page 1-6 Code Recode* (30 - 39) Professional and Technical! not Spec. Ed. and Rehab. or Medical or Educ. 30 - Engineers (degrees): civil, electrical, mechanical, etc. 31 - Lawyers, attorneys, public accountants 32 - Ministers, Clergymen 33 - Musicians 34 - Clinical psychologist 35 - Researchers, scientists, not primarily in education 36 - Social workers, etc. 37 - 39 Other j40 - 45) Business and Industry, Managers, officials, prop.'s 40 - Gov't and other bureau- cratic officials: public administrators and offi- cers, union officials, stage inspectors, public utility, telephone offic- ials, etc. 41 - Manufacturing, industrial officials, exec's, etc. 42 - Non-mfg., service, indus- try: bankers, brokers, insurance, real estate 43 - Retail trades: food, clothing, furniture, gaso- line, vehicle sales, etc. 44 - General: i.e., manager executive, etc., no other qualifications 45 - Open (46 - 49) Farm owners, operators and managers of large farms, e.g., heavy equipment and/or many empl. Column-Ques. Item Detail 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (continued) of Respon- dent* (Spe- cific) *See page 4—2 865 Page 1-7 Code Recode* 46 - Farm owner 47 - Farm operator (renter) 48 - Farm manager 49 - Open (50 - 59) White Collar: office, clerical, etc. 50 51 52 54 (60 men, 60 61 62 63 64 65 Clerical and similar: tellers, bookkeepers, cashiers, secretaries, shipping clerks, attend- ants, telephone Operators, library asst's, mail clerks and carriers, file clerks, etc. Sales workers: advertising, sales clerks, all mfg., wholesale, retail and other Small shopkeeper or dealer 59 Open 69)ABlue Collar: crafts- foremen, and kindred work Craftsmen: carpenters, bakers, electricians, plumbers, machinists,” tailors, toolmakers, photOgraphers, etc. Foremen: all construc- tion, mfg., transporta- tion and communication, and other industries Servicemen: telegraph, telephone, etc. Mechanics and repairmen Shoemakers, roofers, painters, and plasterers Merchant marine, sailors" (non-military) CARD 1 Page 1-8 Column-Ques. _§em Detail Code Recode* 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 66 - Bus and cab drivers, (continued) of Respon- motormen, deliverymen, dent* (Spe- chauffeurs, truck and cific) tractor drivers 67 - Operatives of all other mech. equipment (machine, vehicle, misc. mfg.) 68 - 69 Open (70 - 74) Serivce and Private 'Household workers) 70 - Private household: laun- dress, housekeeper, cook 71 - Firemen and policemen, sheriffs, and baliffs 72 - Attendents, professional and personal (valet, mas- seur, misc. mfg.) ' 73 - Misc. attendents and services: hospital attendents, bootblacks, cooks 74 - Open _(75 - 79) Military Personnel 75 - Ranking officers, all - services (Navy Commander and up, Army and Marines Colone1“and~up) 76 - Junior Officers, Army and Air 77 - Junior Officers, Navy and Marines 78 - Non-commissioned personnel, Army and Air 79 - Non-commissioned personnel, Navy and Marines (80 - 86) Laborers * See page 4-2 865 Page 1-9 Recode* Small farm owners, renters, and farm laborers (small farm has no heavy equipment, provides minimal income and substance, employs 3 or less persons, full or part time, except for migrant help) Non-mfg., non—industrial: fishermen, hunters, lumber- men, miners, gardeners, teamsters, garage laborers, etc. Manufacturing of durable goods: wood, clay, stone (stonecutter), metal, glass plastic,. machinery, of all kinds Mfg. of non-durable goods: food (bakery, beverages, etc.), tobacco, clothing, cloth, paper, printing, chemicals, rubber, leather, etc. Non-mfg. industries: rail- road, construction, trans- portation, workers, etc. 86 Open No emplgyment Column-Ques. Itemgetail Code 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 80 - (continued) ' of Respon- dent* (Spe- cific) 81 - 82 - 83 - 84 - 85 - 187)‘ 87 - * Instructions for Coder: OCCUPATIONS, Persons that haven't worked, such as housewives, students or others who have never had a regular occupation COLUMNS 22-23. Coding information is derived from two sources: 1. Occupational description of groups as listed by the administrator. 2. Personal statements by the respondents in Question 37 of the questionnaire. Question 37 is the primary source of information. If vague or from notes of administrator. * See page 4-2 865 incomplete, score entirely Columntgues. Item Detail 24 37 Q'aire Current Employment/ Status* 25 1 thru All ques- thru 20 H-P tions in 44 Content** handicap— ped per- sons scale are to be scored from raw data. See instruc- tions below. tthi-J I Code b(»bar4 I Page 1-10 Recode* Employed or self-employed Retired Temporarily out of work Housewife, but formerly employed Unable to work (other than retired or housewife) but formerly employed Student or persons trained for employment but not work- ing for various reasons 1, strongly disagree 2, disagree 3, agree 4 strongly agree ‘ * Instructions for Coder: EMPLOYMENT STATUS, COLUMN 24. Code from questionnaire Question §1_if person clearly states employ- ment status. If no employment stated, and no indication with certainty from the administrator, score i, ** Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING, COLUMNS 25-44. NOTE: CERTAIN STEPS AND PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME FOR THE EDUCATION SCALE AS FOR THE HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE. THESE PROCE- DURES WILL BE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The content part of the question is the first half of the question (i.e., the first score). 1. Reverse the content response numbering for the Handicapped Persons §ca12_(NOT the intensity response number) for items ;, _§_, _6_, l_1, and l_2_, as follows: The number of response 1 on data sheets.\ .2 .3. .4. 865 is changed to I and scored directly .4. .2. .2. I. CARD 1 Page 1-11 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 2. Special instructions for NO RESPONSE. Count the number of NO RESPONSE items, if more than 6 occur, do not score respondent for this scale. If there are §_9£_1ess in total, and 3 23 less in sequence, the NO RESPONSE statement is to be scored either l_or 2_by the random procedure of coin flipping. If a head is obtained, the sCOre assigned will be 1. If a tail is obtained, the score assigned will be 2, 3. TOTAL THE RAW SCORES FOR EACH RESPONDENT AND WRITE THE TOTALS ON THE TRANSCRIPTION DATA SHEET DIRECTLY BELOW THE COLUMN TOTALED.* 4. INTENSITY RAW SCORES FOR EACH STATEMENT ARE TO BE SCORED ON THE DATA SHEET EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE: i.e., IF.1 IS CIRCLED IN THE INTENSITY SECTION OF QUESTION ONE, SCORE IT AS l_ON THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE TRANSCRIPTION SHEET. 5. Dichtomization Procedures (i.e., forfMSA - applied to all scales). a) Using raw data scores (i.e., thefactual number circled by the respondent) via the HaftersonigggProgram on the M.S.U. CDC 3600, determine the point g§_1east error for each item on the content scales. b) Using this point (i.e., between l_and g, or between g_and §.or between §_and 4) rescore the items, via recode cards, as.Q,.l via the Hafterson MBA Program on the M.S.U. CDC 3600 to determine which items form g-scale. Run at both .01 and .05 level. c) For Handicapped Persons Sgalek items are scored Q_above the column break, 1 below the column break. For edugation Scale scoring, the reverse is true: items are scored 1 above the column break, Q_below the column break. d) Using the same procedure in point 5-a above, determine the QUT points for the intensity component 9; each item. * By this procedure, the possible range of scores is from-Q to 89. Doubling the obtained score will approximate scores obtained by the method of Yuker, 35 al., (1960, p. 10) 1.HP scale, blind scale, and deaf scale. 865 CARD 1 Page 1-12 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 5. e) Enter the MSA Program with the CUT points for the intensity component and scale as in Point No. 5-b for content. f) Adjusted total scores for content and intensity, Sum the dichxomized content and intensity scores (i.e., 9,.1) obtained by the above procedure for each respondent on these items that scaled for both content and intensity. Maximum score will be l_thhe number 9f.the same items that scaled g§_both content and intensity. 9) Zero Point. Using only the items that scaled for both con- tent and intensity, plot and determine the "zero point" for each cultural group (or other desired groupings) via the method detailed on pages 221-234 by Guttman (1950). 6. Dichotomization Procedure (alternative to no. 5 above). Attempt to program the CUT Program into the MSA so that both procedures under 53a and b are conducted jointly. 45 1 thru Handicapped 1 - 1, not strongly at all thru 20 H;P Persons 2 - 2, not very strongly 64 Intensity* Scale 3 — 3, fairly strongly Intensity 4 - 4, very strongly 1. Except for NO RESPONSE, intensity scores are to be determined as noted in the preceding section regarding Content. 2. Those scales which are rejected because of an excess of NO RESPONSE items in respect to content will of course also be rejected for intensity. Intensity questions which are unscored, but which occur when the content part of the ques- tion is scored, will be scored as follows: If content score is l_or 4, score intensity 4. If content score is g_or ;, score intensity just below the mean intensity score for that item; i.e. mean intensity of the group. * Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE, INTENSITY, COLUMNS 45-64. 'See instructions 1 and 2 above and 3 on the next page. ' €365 CARD 1 page 1-13 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 3. Intensity questions which are unscored, and which occur when the content part of the question is also unscored, will be scored at the highest point below the respondent's own median on the other intensity questions in the questionnaire; i.e., if respondent generally scored intensity questions eitherq4 or 3, so that the median was in between E and 4, score NO RESPONSE g, and so forth. 65 3,4,6, Education 1 - 1, strongly disagree thru 10,11 Scale Tradi-. 2 - 2, disagree 74 12,13 tional, Con- 3 - 3, agree 14,18 tent Respon- 4 - 4, strongly agree 19* fl *1? 1. Items are to be scored on the transcription sheet as circled by the respondent. 2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on Pages 1410, 1-11, and 1-12 for the Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as applying to the education traditional scale, content. * The traditional and the progressive scales are both in the Kerlinger education scale but the responses are scored separ- ately on the transcription sheet. ** gnstructions jg; Qgggr: .EDUCATION SCALE: TRADITIONAL, CONTENT, COLUMNS 65-74. See instructions 1 and 2 on page 1-13. 865 Column:Ques. 1,2,3 10 11,12 13,14 15,16 17,18 19.20 21 865 Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet 37 Q'aire 37 Q'aire Face'Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest group) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.- Rehab..SER) Deck or Card Number Project Director Day of Adminis- tration Month 0f Admin. is- tration Year of Adminis~ tration Type of Adminis- tration Code Same 01 - Same Same 02 Same and as Card 1, 99 99 Card 1, as as Card 1, as Card 1, as Card 1, 1-3 01-31 01-12 Page 2-1 Recode* page 1-1 page 1-2 page 1-2 page 1-2 pages 1-2 Same as Card 1, page 1-4 Same as Card 1, page-1&4 Column-Ques. 22.23 24 25 thru 34 35 thru 44 Face Sheet Face Sheet 3,4,6,10, 11,12,13, 14,18,19 1,2,5,7, 8,9,15, 16,17,20 * Instructions for coder: Item Detail Occupation of Respond- ent Page 2-2 Code Recode* Same as Card 1, pages 1-4 through 1-9 Current Same as Card 1, page 1-10 Employment Status Education 1 - 1, not strongly at all Scale, 2337 2 - 2, not very strongly ditional, 3 - 3, fairly strongly Intensity, 4 - 4, very strongly Responses* Education 1 - 1, strongly disagree Scale, grg- 2 - 2, disagree gressive, 3 - 3, agree Content 4 - 4, strongly agree Responses** EDUCAIIQN SCALE, TRADITIONAL, INTENé §ITY, COLUMNS 24-33. ted in caps on pages 1-11, Intensity questions are scored as indica— 1-12 and 1-13 and as noted before, Handicapped Persons Scale, pages 1-10, 1-11 and 1-12, instruc- tions 1 through 5. ** Instructions for Coder: QQLUMNS 34-43. 1. 2. 865 EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, CONTENT, Items are to be scored exactly as circled. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages 1-11, 1-12 and 1-13, Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as belonging to the education progressive scale content. CARD 2 Page 2-3 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 45. 1,2,5,7, Education 1 - 1, not strongly at all thru 8,9,15, Scale, Pro- 2 - 2, not very strongly 54 16,17,20 gressive 3 - 3, fairly strongly Intensity 4 - 4, very strongly Responses*_ 55-56 Raw S Value scale, score Support 01 - 32 score** 57-58 Raw Q Value scale, 01 - 32 score Conformipy score** 59-60 Raw 3 Value scale, 01 - 32 score Recognition score** (comparative) 61-62 Raw ; Value scale, 01 - 32 ' score Indepen- dence score** 63-64 Raw B. Value scale, 01 - 32 score .Benevolence score**(asset) 65-66 Raw L Value scale, 01 - 32 ‘ score Leadership score** (comparative) * lpstructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, INTENSITY, COLUMNS 44-53. Same as instructions for Education Scale, Pro- gressive content, see’page 2-2. ** 865 Entries for columns 63-74 are obtained through scoring accord- ing to SRA Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values, Science Research Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illi- nois, 1960. For scoring, coders should use the special keys adapted from the SRA English edition of the scale. Although the summed scores of the six value scales should total 90, scores between 84 and 95 are "acceptable." Column-Ques. 67-68 Sum of item scores, 1-20, Content 69-70 Sum of item scores, 1-20, Intensity 71-72 Sum of item scores, 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 73-74 Sum of item scores, 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 Item Detail Code Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item 12 to dichotomiza- tion, H.P, §pale, Con- tent* Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item 4.19 to dichotomiza- tion, H.P. Scale, Inten- sity* Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item .12 to dichotomiza- tion Educa- tion Tradi- tional Scale, Content*- Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item _+_9_ to dichotomiza- tion Educa- tion-Tradi- tional §pa1e, Intensity*‘ * See Card 1, page 1-12, adjusted total scores are obtained. 865 .' .'"'",. instruction no. Page 2-4 Recode* dich. for no. to use Code will be: QQ.or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: QQ.or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: .00 or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: QQ_or obtained score 5-f, to ascertain how Column-Ques. 75-76 77-78 Sum of item scores, 1, 2,5,7,8,9, 15,16,17,2O Sum of item scores, 1, 2,5,7,8,9, 15,16,17,20 _;em Detail Code Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item 12 to dichotomiza- tion Educa- tion Progres- sive §cale, m* Adjusted (Check totals based: here) on item .12 to dichotomiza- tion Educa- tion Progregr sive.§pale, lntensity* Page 2-5 Recode* dich. for no. to use Code will be: QQ_or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: 93 or obtained score f * See Card 1, page 1-12, instruction No. S-f, to ascertain how adjusted total scores are obtained. 865 Column-Ones. 1.2.3 4.5 6,7 10 11.12 13.14 15,16 17.18 19.20 21 865 Face Face Sheet Face Sheet 'Face Sheet Face Sheet 37 Q'aire New Face Sheet Sheet Face Face Sheet Face Sheet Sheet Face Sheet CARD 3 Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest grOUP) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.- Rehab. SER) Deck or Card Number Project Director Day of Admin- , istration Month of Adminis- tration Year of Adminis- tration Type of Adminis- tration Same Code Same as Card 1. 01-99 01-99 Same as Card 1, as Card 1. Same as Card 1. 03 Same and as Card 1, 1-3 01-31 01-12 Same as Card 1, Same as Card 1, Page 3-1 Recode* page 1-1 page 1-2 page 1-2 page 1-2 pages 1-2 page 1-4 page 1-4 CARD 3 Page 3-2 Column:gues. _ Item Detail Code Recode* 22,23 Face Sheet Occupation Same as Card 1, pages of Respond- l-4 through 1-9 ent 24 Face Sheet Current 'Same as Card 1, page l-lO employment status 25,26 1 Q'aire Contact Primary group 1 - 01, Elem. School (Educ.) - 2 - 02, Sec. School 3 - 03, University 4 - 04, Other as specified 5 - 05, No experience 27,28 2 Q'aire Contact Spcondary group 1 - Ol (Educ.) 2 - 02 3 - 03 SAME 4 - 04 5w- 05 29,30 3 Q'aire Educational 1 - 01 Know nothing about Ed Contact 2 - 02 Read little about Ed (Varieties) 3 - 03, Studied about Ed 4 - 04 Neighbor works 5 - 05 Friend works 6-- 06 Relative works 7 - 07 Family works 8 - 08 I work in Ed 9 - 09 Other (l) (2) (3) “865 If any combination of alternatives 1, 2 and 3 are circled, code as 10, Impersonal Contact . If any combination of alternatives 4-8 are circled, code as 11, Personal Contact. If alternatives are circled in both division, code as 12, Both Impersonal and Personal Contact. This requires coding alterna- tive OTHER (i.e., alternative 9) as either personal or imperé sonal contact; i.e., according to its content. 2 Column-Ques. 31 4 QIaire 32 5 Q'aire 33 6 QKaire 34 7 Q'aire 35.36 8 Qjaire 37 9 Q'aire ‘ses CARD 3 Item Detail Amount of Contact (Educ.) Percent of income from - Education Enjoyment of Educational Work Alternative ‘work (to educ.) Age Commun ity in whigh reared. If more than one is checked try to determine in which one the respond- ent spent most of the time. If gags; (DVO‘U'IDUJNH I DwNI-I' Ul-thH I I UI-bUNI-d I wal-J I Page 3-3 RecOde* less than 3 months 3 months to 6 months 6 months to 1 year 1 year to 3 years 3 years to 5 years 5 years to 10 years over 10 years over 15 years less than 10% 10 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75%- 75 to 100% disliked not much somewhat enjoyed no information unavailable not acceptable. not quite acceptable acceptable years years country country town city city suburb CARD 3 Page 3-4 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 37 9 Q'aire (continued) impossible, try to choose a median (i.e. country, city. score country town) 38 10 Q'aire Employment 1 - 1. country community 2 - 2, country town (recent) 3 - 3, city 4 - 4, city suburb 39 ll Q'aire Recent Resi- l - 1, country dence 2 - 2, country town 3 - 3, city 4 - 4, city suburb 40 12 Q'aire Marital 1 - I, married Status 2 - 2, single 3 - 3, divorced 4 - 4, widowed 5 - 5, separated 41.42 13 Q'aire -Number of l - 01 children. 2 - 02 If blank, 3.- 03 check Ques. '° ° 13. If 10 - 10 single, 43.44 14 Q'aire 865 score 00; if married, score -9. Yearly Income UNITED STATES (self-family) 01 - less than 03 - $2,000 to (for other nations see Special ' Instructions) 10 - $9,000 to $1.000 $1.999 $2.999 $9.999 CARD 3 Page 3-5 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 45 15 Q'aire »Comparative 1 - 1, much lower Income 2 - 2. lower (self-fam- 3 - 3, about the same ily) 4 - 4. higher 5 - 5, much higher 46.47 16 Q'aire Brothers. 1 - 01 ' If the 2 - 02 respondent 3 - 03 answers - '- only one -10 - 10 question (17 or 18) and other is blank, assume it to be zero. 48,49 17 Q'aire Sisters Same as number of brothers 51.51 Ndneii'r - Siblings - l - 01 V~" ” Obtain by ° - summing 15 - 15 above Ques- tions 16 and 17, Col's 45, 46 and 47. 48 52 18 Q'aire Fathers' 1 - 1. much lower Income: 2 - 2, lower .Comparative 3 - 3, about the same ' 4 - 4, higher 5 - 5, much higher 53 19 Q'aire Religious l - 1, Roman Catholic - Affiliation 2 - 2, Protestant 3 - 3, Jewish 4 - 4, None 5 - 5. Other 6 to 9. Other major religions £365 Column-Ques. 54 55 56 57 58 59 865 20 Q'aire 21 Q'aire 22 Q'aire 23 Q'aire 24 Q'aire 25-Q'aire CARD 3 Item Detail Code Religion 1 - (Import- -2'- ance) 3 - 4 - Personaliam l - (job-amount) 2 - 3 - 4 _ 5 - . 6 _ 7 - 3 - Personalism l - (job-impor- 2 - tance of) 3 - 4 - Personalism l - (job-diffu- 2 - sion) 3 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 7 - Social Class 1 - Position 2 - (Self) 3 - . 4 - 5 - Social Class Same Position (Father) Page 3-6 Recode*. No religion Not very Fairly Very none no contact less than 10% 10 to 30% 30 to 50% 50 to 70% 70 to 90% over 90% not at all not very fairly very none less than 10% 10 to 30% 30 to 50% 50 to 70% 70 to 90% over 90% lower lower middle middle upper middle upper above £3€H5 Column-Ques. 60 26 Q'aire 61 27 Q'aire 62 28 Q'aire 63 29 Q'aire _ _ 64 30 metre item Detai; Education (Self- amount). If more than one is circled, choose the highest amount or determine the approp- riate an answer. Education (Self-com- parative) Education (Father - comparative) Heusing (type of) "Housing (rental- month) (for other nations see Special Instructions) Code ar\JO\UIbmwlord U'I-wal—i U'IUFUNH mm 7 c-uawua Page 3-7 Recode* 1, three years or less 2, six years or less 3, nine years or less 4, twelve years or less 5. some college 6, degree 7, work beyond degree 8, advanced degree 1, much less 2, less 3, average 4, more 5, much more 1, much less 2, less 3, average 4, more 5, much more 1, rent house 2, rent apartment 3, rent room 4, purchase room and board 5, own apartment 6, own house 7, other UNITED STATES H: qmmbuNI-J $20 or less 21 - 40 (dollars) 41 - 75 76 - 125 126 - 200 201 - 300 300 or more Cblumn- ues. 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 ~ 72 73 865 Bl-A Q'aire 31-B Q'aire 31-C Q'aire 31-D Q'aire 3l-E Q'aire 31-F Q'aire 31-G Q'aire 31-H Q'aire 3l-I Q'aire Item Detail Institutional Satisfaction. Elementary Schools Institutional Satisfaction Secondary Schools Institutional- Satisfaction Universities Institutional Satisfaction Businessmen Institutional Satisfaction Labor Institutional Satisfaction Government (local) Institutional Satisfaction Government (National) Institutional Satisfaction Health Services Institutional Satisfaction Churches Code U'IIFWNH I Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same 3 do not know 1 poor 2 fair 4 good" 5.excellent Page 3-8 Recode* CARD 3 Page 3-9 Columnzgues. I Item Detail Code Recode* 74 32 Q'aire Residency 1 - 1, less than a year (current . 2 - 2, one to two years length) 3 - 3, three to six years 4 - 4, seven to ten years 5 - 5. over ten years 75 33 Q'aire Residency l - 1, yes ‘ =(change- '2 - 2, no recent) 865v Column-Ques. 1.2.3 Face Sheet 4.5 6,7 ~10, 11.12 13.14 15.16 17.18 19.20 21 865 Face Face Face 37 0' New Face. .Face ‘Face- Face. Face. Face Sheet Sheet Sheet aire Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number »Respondent Number ~Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest 9rOUP) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.- Rehab. SER) DeCk or Card NUmber Project Director Day of Adminis- tration Month of Adminis- tration Year of Adminis- tration Type of Adminis- tration Qode Same as Card 1, 01 - 99 Ol - 99 Same as Card 1, :Same as Card 1, Same as Card 1. 04 Same as Card 1, 1-3 and 1-3 01-31 01-12 .Same as Card 1, Same as Card 1. Page 4-1 Recode* page l-l page 1-2 page 1-2 page 1-2 pages page 1-4 page 1-4 Column-Ques. 22.23 Face Sheet 24 Face Sheet 25 34 Q'aire 26 35 Q'aire 27 36 Q'aire 28,29 37 Q'airel 30 38 Q'aire 31 39 Q'aire 32 40 Q'aire 865 CARD 4 item Detail Occupation of Respond- ent Current Employment Status JOb change (recent) Residency (change fre- quency) (i. e.. last ten years) JOb (change frequency) (i.e.. last ten years) Occupation (Specific) Religiousity (norm con- formity) Change Ori- entation (Health Practices) Change Ori- entation (Child Rearing) Code Same 1-4 Same N I mU'l-DMNH I GUIPwNH I Same 1-4 huh)?“ U'IDUNH I I PMNH I as Card 1, Page 4-2 Recode* pages through 1-9 as Card 1, page l-lO 38 yes no none one time two to three times four to six times seven to ten times over ten times none one-time two to three times four to six times seven to ten times over ten times Card 1, pages through 1-9 no religion seldom sometimes usually almost always no probably not maybe yes' strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree ' strongly agree 'Column-Ques. 865 33 41 Q'aire 34 42 Q'aire _ 35 43 Q'aire 36 44 Q'aire 37 45 Q'aire 38 46 Q'aire 39 47 Q'aire 40 48 Q'aire CARD 4 Item Detail Change Ori- entation (Birth con- trol Prac- tices) Change Ori- entation (Automation) Change Ori- entation (Political Leaders) Education (aid to - local) Education (aid to - federal) ~Education (planning responsi- bility) Change Ori- entation (self) Change Ori- entation (self-role' adherence) 929.9. waI-I waI-I IbuNI—I waI-I ..puNI—a I I I I I NH II butch-I I Ip'wNH I Page 4-3 Recode*- always right usually right probably wrong always wrong strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree strongly disagree 'slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree only parents only city or local government primarily federal government very difficult somewhat slightly difficult easy very easy agree strongly agree slightly disagree disagree slightly strongly Column-Ques . 41 42 43 44 45 49 Q'aire 50 Q'aire 51 Q'aire 52 Q'aire 53 Q'aire 46.47 54 Q'aire £3¢5£5 CARD 4 lpem Detail Change Ori- entation (self- routine job) Personalism (Famialism— Parental ties) Personalism (Other ori- entation) Future Ori- entation (Planning) Future Ori- entation (Happiness) Future Ori- entation (Happiness possibility) boner- I humid I Code 'Same bIDICrd I 5. Page 4-4 Recode* agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly disagree strongly disagree slightly agree slightly agree strongly agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly nothing money friends job health other Nothing Marriage Divorce Friends Religion (Satisfaction with life) Money >JOb Education Health (Mental) Health (Physical) No response Column-Ques. 49.50 2-Q-HP 51.52 3-Q-HP CARD 4 Item Detail Page 4-5 Recode* HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUESTIONNAIRE l—Q-HP HP Contact Group (Pri- mary) HP Contact Group (Sec- ondary) HP.Contact (varieties) 4-Q-HP HP Contact (amount) * NOTE: \DmflmmwaI-J \IGLfiIfiWNI-J UIhUNI-J U'Inh-(JJNI-J ~§ Q Q ~ blind partially blind deaf (and mute) partially deaf crippled disfigured spastic speech none '00 If there was no contact to and questions are not 08 answered score 2, The score for this question is the score of the response alternatives circled, i.e.. scores can range from _Q to _8_. Minimum knowledge -Studied about HP Friend HP Relative HP WOrked with HP Family HP Self is HP O9)* See note below less than ten ten to fifty fifty to 100 100 to 500 over 500 If either or both alternatives 1 and 2 are circled, code as Q§.- Impersonal contact. If either or all alterna- tives 3-7 are circled, code as.Qg - Personal contact. If alternatives from both preceding divisions are circled, code as ;Q_- Impersonal and Personal contact. Column-Ques._ 54 S-Q-HP 55 G-Q-HP 56 7-Q-HP 57 B-Q-HP 58 9-QfHP 59 IO-Q-HP 60 ll-Q-HP 865 CARD 4 Item Detail HP Contact (ease of avoidance) HP Contact (gain from) HP-Contact (% income) HP Contact (enjoyment) HP Contact (alternae tives to) Contact (amount- MORO) Contact (amount- EDP) Code Imupcdtora £>ka)h' Inconaha I I I PUMP I LII-FUN?“ I Same Page 4-6 Recode* great difficulty considerable difficulty some inconvenience ' no inconvenience no rewards paid credit paid and credit less than 10% 10 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% over 75% disliked, great disliked, little liked, some definitely enjoyed No information on alternatives No other job available Other available job N93 acceptable Other'available job acceptable less than 10 10 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 over 500 Column-Ques. 61,62 Sum of item scores 1-20 -Content 63.64 Sum of item scores 1-20 Intensity 65,66 Sum of item scores 3, 4,6,10,11, 12.13.14, 18.19 67,68 Sum of item scores 3, 4,6,10,11. 12,13,14. 18.19 865 (_— CARD 4 tem Detail Code Handicapped 00-80 Persons Scale Total Content Ray! Score, entry on trans- cription sheet Handicapped 00-80 Persons _ Scale Total Intensity 53! Score, entry on ‘_transcrip- tion sheet Education 00-40 Scale,'g£§- ditional Total.§§! Content score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00-40 Scale,.2£§r ditional Total Rey Intensity, score entry on transcrip-‘ tion sheet Page 4-7 Recode* Columntgues. 69.70 71.72 865 Sum of item scores 1, 2,5,7,8, 9,15,16, 17,20 Sum of item scores 1, 2.5.7.8, 9.15.16, 17.20 CARD 4 gpem Detail Code Education 00-40 Scale, £32: gressive Total‘ggg Content score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00-40 Scale,lg£p¢ gressive Total 3317 Intensity score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Page 4-8 -Recode* APPENDIX C C-A Special Instructions for Scoring Kansas Data In Code Book Wichita, Kansas (009) 1 0f 3 (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Card_COl. 1:4-5 Group Numbers' -01 Institute of Logopedics- . Dickie - Regular Teachers and 6 Special Ed. -02 Institute of Logopedics- Weir - Special Education -03 Institute of Logopedics- Weir - Special Education Personnel -Oh Institute of Logopedics- Weir - Special Education Personnel -05 Institute of Lo Opedics- Dickie - SpeciaI Education & Ancillary -06 Emporia State Teachers College- Dickie, S ecial Education of ' Public SC 001 -07 Institute of Logopedics- Dickie - Special Ed., Speech Pathologists ~08 Corbin Education Center- Wichita State University- Dickie, Regular Elementary and Secondary _-09 Institute Of Logopedics- Weir - Regular Elementary and Secondary 10 Town House.Motel-Wichita- Dickie-Labor 11 Ramada Inn-Wichita-Dickie- Labor 12 YMCA-W1chita-Dickie-Labor . 13. Wichita State University- Weir-Labor la Wichita State University- Weir-Labor . 15 Wichita State University- Weir-Labor 16 Institute of Logopedics- Weir-Labor I. The Card/Col. designations refers to the location in the Code Book. International Stud -86 ‘2. ‘Designates changes an37or aaaitIons to the 86 Code Book. All card designations over 5 will indicate ad itions. In such cases the fuli code will be given since it will be new and not contains n t e 865 code book. ggrd/COI. 5:1-24 25-44 45-64 65-66 67-68 5* 1 Instructions to Coder: Code Book Wichita, Kansas (009) 2 of 3 (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) Ques. Item Depail Code Card 1 (Contd.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Card Q Town House Motel-Dickie- Managers Ramada Inn-Wichita-Dickie- Managers YMCA-Wichita—Dickie~Managers Wichita State Univ.-Weir- Managers Wichita State Univ.-Weir- Managers Wichita State Univ.-Weir- Managers Home-WeiréManagers Spec. Ed. Same as Card 1 except Column 11-12 (i.e. Deck or Card no. 92) 1 thru 2 8? Content All questions in Blind Persons (BP) Scale are to be scored from £43 data, See instructions l-l, strongly disagree 2—2, disagree 3-3, agree 4-4, strongly agree below and on pages 1-10. 1 thru 20 pg BP Scale Intensity. See l-l, not strongly at all tions for scoring inten- 2-2, not very strongly Intensity pages 1-11 for instruc- sity. Sum2 of item 8? Scale. scores, 1-20 Content (BP) Sum2 scores, 1-20 Intensity IBP) raw score 0 sity raw score. of item BP Scale. Total Inten- Blind Persons Scale Scoring, Reverse the content response numbers for the Blind Persons Scale 3-3, fairly strongly h-h, very strongly Total Content 00-80 00-80 001' S ZS-Lrlkc (not the intensity response numbers) for items 2, 10, 13, 1h, 17, 19. tions for No Response. mm 0 See also p. 1-10 for procedures on HP scale. Same as number 2, p. 1-10. . Same as 3, page 1-10, International Code Book-865. Same as 5, page 1-11, International Code Book-865, Special.instruc- Code Book Wichita, Kansas (009) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) 3 of 3 Column Ques. Item Detail Code 69-70 Sum3 of adjusted Adjusted Totals based 00' _ item scores. on item dichotomiza- (Check dlCh- for no. to ContentIEP) tion Content (BP)_ use here-) See pp-tlzll . for instr. 71-72 Sum3 of adjusted Adjusted totals based 00- item scores on item dichotomiza- (Check dich. for no. to lntensity_(BP) tion Intensity (BP) use here.) See pp. L11 . for instr. 6:1-24 Same as Card 1 except Column 11-12 (i.e. Deck or Card no. g1.) 25-44 1 thru 20 HHP All questions in 1-1, strongly disagree Content Hearing Handicapped 2-2, disagree Persons Scale (HHP) 3-3, agree are to be scored from t-h, strongly agree raw data. See instructions below and on p. 1-10. h5-6k 1 thru 20 HHP HHP Intensity See l-l, not strongly at all Intensity pages 1-11 for instruo~2-2, not very strongly tions for scoring 3-3, fairly strongly intensity. t-h, very strongly 65-66 Sum2 of item HHP Scale. Total Con- 00-80 scores, 1-20 tent raw score. Content (HEP) 67-68 sum2 of item HHP Scale. Total Inten-00-80 scores, 1-20 sity raw score. Intensity (RH?) 69-70 Sum3 of adjusted Adjusted totals based 00- item scores on item dichotomiza- (Check dich. for no. to Content (HHP) tion Content (HHP) use here.) See p. 1-11 for instructions. 71-72 Sum3 of adjusted Adjusted totals based 00- item scores. Intensity (HHP) on item dichotomiza- tion Intensity (HHP) Instructions to coder: 1. (Check dich..for no. to use here.) See p. 1-11 for instructions. Hearing Handicapped Persons ScaleL_Col‘s 25-54 Reverse the content response numbers for the REF Scale (not the intensity response numbers) for items 1,7,10,15. See also p. 1-10 of International Code Book - 865 for procedures on HP Scale. Special instructions for no response; Same as number 2,p.1-10, International Code Book 865. . See page previous. See previous page. to» O APPENDIX C C-5 Data Transcription Sheet Attitudes Toward Education: International Study ,Handicapped Persons Edugation Scale - ~ .Education Scale'- ~ . radltional 3rogress1ve Scale (Card 1) Card 1 Card 2 Card 1 Card 2 a'COntent Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity (Col) ,_ (Col) (Col) (Col) (col) (Col) .......... a----------,----------_ ---------«-----------«--------- l. ____j25) (45) 3. ____(65) (25) l..____(35),_____(45) 2. ___(26) _____(46) '4. _(66) (26) 2.'___(36) _-___(46) 3. __ __ 6. __(67) (27) 5. _(37) ____(47) 4. __ __ 10. ___(68) ___(28) 7. _(38) ___(48) 5. __ __ ll. ___(69) ___(29) 8. _(39) ___(49) 6. __ __ 12.—(70) ____(30) 9. ____(40) ____(50) 7. __ __ 13.__(7l) __(31) 1.5. _(41) __(51) s. __ __ l4.____(72) ___(32) 16. _(42) (52) '9. __ __ 18. (73) (33) 17. ____(43) (53) "'10. ___(.34) _____(54)19.__(74) ___(34) 20.__(44) _(54) ”ll.__ __ I 12.______ __ __ __ __ __ 13._____ ______ 14._____ ______ 15.__(39) __(59‘) 16._____ ______ 17,_____ ._____ Location 18-____. _____. Group W :1. :. fig l9n____ ______ 20. (44) _________(64) Respondent No. eeeeeeeee 865 APPENDIX 0 C-6 FCC I and FCC 11 Variable - . Computer Print-Out Code Form FCC 1 Field Question NO. 6-25 26-45 46-55 lst 24 Cole. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12_ Face Sheet of Scales Face Sheet of Scales 37.Q'aire Face Sheet of Scales 37 Q'aire H-P Scale H-P Scale Education Scale Colombia (102)) Variable Name Par—(1.1 Nation sSex Interest Group Occupation Type of Administration ~Current Employment Status H-P Content H-P‘Intensity Trad. Education-Content Card 2 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 56-65 66-75 76-85 Education Scale Education Scale Education — Scale Trad. Education-Intensity Prog. Education-Content Prog. Education-Intensity Card 3 lst 24 Cole. SAME as card 1 except for £91. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 86. 87 88 89 90 1265 -Contact (amount-education) Contact (gain from education) -Contact (enjoyment-education) Contact (alternatives to education) Early Youth Community 'Col. 24 25-44 45-64 65-74 25-34 35-44 45-54 31. 32 33 34 37 FCC 1 (cont.) Field NO. 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 10 11 12 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31-A 31- Question Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire B Q'aire Colombia(102) Variable Name Employment Community (recent) Residence Community (recent) Marital Status Income (comparative-self fam.) Income (father's comparative) Religious affiliation Religion (importance) Personalism (job-amount) Personalism (job-importance of) Personalism (job-diffusion) Social class position (self) Social class position (father) Education (self-amount) Education (self-comparative) Education (father-comparative) Housing (type of) Housing (rental-month) 31-C 31-D 31-E .31-F 31-G 31-H 31-I 32 Q' 33 Q' Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q‘aire aire aire~ Institutional satis. (elem. schools) Institutional satis. (sec. schools) Institutional satis. (universities) Institutional satis. (businessmen) Institutional satis. (labor) Institutional satis. (local gov't) Institutional satis. (nat'l. gov't.) Institutional satis. (health) Institutional satis. (churches) Residing (current length) Residing (change-recent) Card 4 lst 24 Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 119 120 121 122 1265 34 O' 35 Q aire 'aire 36 Q' 38 Q' aire aire JOb (change-recent) Residing (change-frequency) JOb (change-frequency) Religiousity (norm-conformity) Col. 38 39 40 45 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 25 26 27 30 FCC 1 (cont.) Field NO. 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 - 131 132 j 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 1265 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 Question Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire- Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire A Change orientation l-Q-HP' 4-Q-HP S-Q-HP 6-Q-HP 7-Q-HP 8-Q-HP 9-Q-HP IO-Q-HP ll-Q‘HP Co lomb ia 410 2) Variable Name Change orientation Change orientation Change orientation Change orientation (health-practice) (child rearing) (birth control) (automation) (political leaders) Education (aid to-local) Education (aid to-federal) Education (planning responsibility) Change orientation (self) Change orientation (self-rule adherence) Change orientation (self-routine job) Personalism (famialism-parental ties) Personalism (other orientation) Future Orientation (planning) Future Orientation (happiness prereq.) Contact group (primary - HP) Contact (amount of HP) Contact (ease of avoidance) Contact (gain from - HP) Contact (% income from HP) Contact (enjoyment - HP) Contact (alternative to HP) Contact (amount - M.R.) Contact (amount-emotional ill) Col. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 48 S3 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Colombia (102) FCC 2 Variable Name Field Question NO. Card 1 1 Face Sheet Group NUmber 2 37 Q'aire Specific Occupation Card 2 'lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for gpl. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card - mummbw Value Value Value Value Value Value Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale Scale No.) Support Value gpnformity,Value Recognition Value (comparative) lpdependent Value .Eenevolence Value (asset) ~Leadership Value (comparative) Card 3 lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for £91. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 9 l Q'aire Contact group (primary education) 10 2 Q'aire Contact group (secondary education) 11 3 Q'aire Contact (varieties of education) 12 8 Q'aire Age _ l3 l3.Q'aire Number of children l4 l4 Q'aire Income (yearly-self, family) 15 16 Q'aire Brothers (do not use) l6 l7 Q'aire Sisters (do not use) 17 None Siblings Card 4 lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 1265 Col. 55.56 57.58 59,60 61,62. 63,64 65.66 25.26 27.28 29.30 35.36 41.42 43.44 46,47 48,49 50,51 FCC 2 (cont.) Field NO. 18 19 20 31 22 23 24 25 26 27 1265 Question 37 Q'aire 54 Q'aire 2-Q-HP 3-Q-HP HP Scale HP Scale Education Scale Education Scale . Education Scale Education Scale Colombia (102) Variable Name Occupation (specific) Future Orient. (happiness possib.) Contact group (secondary HP) Contact (varieties of HP) HP Total Content Raw Score HP Total gntensity Raw Score Trad. Trad. Prog. Prog. Educ. Educ. Educ. Educ. Total. gent. Raw Score Total. Int. Raw Score Total gpnt. Raw Score Total Int. Raw Score Col. 28,29 46,47 49.50 51.52 61.62 63,64 65,66 67,68 69.70 71.72 APPENDIX c 0-7 Administrator's Summary Sheet - TEST ADMINISTRATION DATA 1. ' 2 3. Group NO.______ Date Administrator TOtal No. Respondents_____, gale Pamela Persons Assisting: Name: Address: Title: ‘_ Name: Address: Title: glace of Administration: Description of Test Setting: (lighting, noise, conditions, etc. '10. Principal Occupational Characteristics of Respondent GRoup: 11. Occupational Variability Of Respondent Group: It 0 - Names of Persons who directly arranged for respondent group: Name: Address: Title and fUnction Name: Address: 1 Title and function: 3. Others assisting with contacts or arrangements for respondent group: Name: Address: 4 Title and function , Name: . ‘Address: 1 Title and function J A. Comments: (Group receptivity, verbal and non-verbal reactions unusual test incidents or reactions, etc.) APPENDIX 0 C-8 Rationale and Procedures . for Producing Item "Directionality" in the Following Scales 1. Handicapped Persons Scale 2. Hearing Handicapped Persons Scale 3. Blind Persons Scale 4. Deaf Persons Scale John E. Jordan John E. Felty September 30, 1965 The rationale for reversing content scoring on the H-P scale items 2, 5, 6, ll, 12. a. All of the other items of the scale state either a difference between HP'S and others, or a negative characteristic--therefore, ggreemepp with these itémS’indicates less acceptance (according to Yuker-Block). b. The 5 items mentioned above are statements of similarity between HP's and others, therefore agreement indicates more acceptance. In order to make the "direction" Of acceptance the same for all items, the scoring was reversed on these 5, so that peOple who disagreed with statements Of similarity would get a higher score. c. After this reversal, high scores on each of the items is supposed to indicate less acceptance. d. In the dichotomization procedure (Felty, by hand) there was a final reversal of scoring on all items in order to make a high (4) score be favorable, and a low (9) score unfavorable for each item. It is, of course, not necessary to make this final step, but it is more convenient for my thinking, and a more usual procedure, to make more favorable scores higher. For Dickie and Weir, the positively-stated items are not all precise statements of similarity, but the items can - be divided into those in which ggreement with the item indicates unfavorable attitudes, and those in which agreemenp indicates favorable attitudes. This is by inspection, Of course, and it is possible that- empirical test could indicate that a given item was placed in the wrong category. Such an item would probably scale negatively with the others, and scoring would have to be reversed for this item in computing total scores for each subject. This question is independent Of the question of whether a high total score indicates favorable or unfavorable attitudes, which is a question of item content. If you want a high total Score to indicate favorable attitudes, (see l,d above), one way would be tO follow Felty's procedure on the H-P scale (as outlined above and in the Code book). However, if the computer dichotomization is used, it will be necessary to reverse-the total scores after the dichotomized total scores have been computed for each person for scale items (this is a hand procedure based on new dichotomized totals--either machine or hand- dichotomized--and takes place as the last two Operations in the "scale and intensity analysiS" subsection of the "flow and control chart." That is, after scaling, even by computer, someone still has to figure out the new total scores for each respondent for each "scale," enter these into unused columns of the data sheet, and then have them punched into Deck 1 for further analysis.) If after dichotomization, total scores ranged from 0 to 20 (possible with 20 dichotomized statements scored 0,1) andh igh scores indicate unfavorable attitudes, -the scoring can be reversed by making up an equivalence table to transpose the scores; e.g., Total Scorgs i a— Dichotomized Reversed "Unfavorable" "Favorable" 20 19 18 17 etc. (DUONI-JO to. Another way of doing this would avoid the necessity of ' making two sets of reversals; i.e., instead of re- versing the similarity-type items (see above, l,b), reverse the others. This means many more items have to be reversed initially in the scoring but that no further reversal is necessary since a high score for each item would then presumedly indicate a favorable or accepting response. Although this would be more time- consuming for coder, it would save time later and is not as complicated. (Note: it will still be necessary to Obtain new scale item total scores by a hand pro- cedure after dichotomization and scaling as indicated on p. 2. . For the Blind Persons Scale (Dickie) a high score (strong agreement) indicates favorable attitude for items 2, 10,1§, 14,17, 19. 3 . For the Hearing Handicapped Persons Scale (Weir) a high,” score (strong agreement) indicates favorable attitude for items 1, 7y_10, 15. - If the scores are reversed for these items, a high total score will indicate unfavorable or unaccepting attitudes, and a further reversal following dichotomization would be advisable (as on pages 1 and 2). If scores are reverSed for all other items, a high total score will indicate favorable or acceptipg attitudes, and no further reversal will be necessary. For Sinha (Emotionally Disturbed Persons Scale - EDP) the procedures follow exactly those of Felty for the HP scale. (See pages 1—10 Of code book number 865). FolIowing is a summary of the above procedures to be used by all studies: a. in initial scoring, reverse favorab4y stated items (usual procedure) i.e., those items mentioned Specifically by number. b. submit for dichotomization and scale analysis by computer c. for scale items Obtain new total scores for each respondent d. convert these total scores by inverting the order (e. g. , bottom of page 21.High score now indicates favorable attitude e. enter scale scores (converted) onto data sheets in Open columns f. have scale scores punched into Deck 2 at data processing. g. use new scale score totals in subsequent analyses (Anova,~MRA, etc.) h. since the intensity items are all clearly directional, from low to high intensity, there would be no reason for making any reversals. . H I See page A. 1As mentioned before, a possible compliCation can arise with items which scale negatively with the other items in the Lingoes procedure. This would seem tO indicate that the prejudgment about whether the item was "favorable" or "unfavorable" was in error, and would require a reversal of scoring for this item in obtaining a total scale score. That is, all "Q's" would be scored as "4's" and vice versa (as Lingoes states it, the item has been "reflected"). ,John E. Jordan John E. Felty