PER ITEM

’1

 

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

ABSTRACT

ATTITUDES OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS VERSUS REGULAR
TEACHERS TOWARD THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
AND TOWARD EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

by James Harlen Green

The primary purpose of this dissertation was to com—

pare special educators and regular classroom teachers with

regard to their attitudes toward the physically handicapped

and toward educationo Interpersonal values, personal con—

tact, change orientation, and certain demographic variables

were considered to be determinants of attitudes. A social-

psychological theoretical framework was used to study atti-

tudes toward physically disabled persons and toward tradi-
tional and progressive education° .

The study was conducted in Michigan and the fifteen
counties from which the sample was drawn geographically
resembled a previous (Mader, 1967) study of special edu-
cators. A stratified random sample of 200 regular ele-
mentary and 200 secondary teachers was selected, There
was a 78 percent return of the questionnaires.

A battery of five research instruments consisted of:
(a) the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (Yuker

et al., 1960), (b) the Attitudes Toward Education Scale

James Harlen Green

(Kerlinger, 1958), (c) the Survey of Interpersonal Values
(Gordon, 1960), (d) the Personal Questionnaire, and (e)
the Personal Questionnaire-HPc

The hypotheses were divided into four major cate-
gories pertaining to: (a) contact frequency, intensity,
and attitude scores, (b) attitude-value interaction, (c)
change orientation and attitude, and (d) differences be-
tween special educators and regular classroom teachers
regarding attitudes, values, change orientation, and con-
tact.

Statistical procedures involved the use of two fre-
quency Column Count Programs, in tabulating frequency-
distributions for every variable. One- and two-way
analysis of variance computer-programs were used for
testing hypotheses about the difference between group
means.= A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal
N's was used to analyze group-sex interactiono Since the
samples were not equal in size or in sex ratio within
groups, an "adjusted mean" was computed on which to base
all E tests. The adjusted mean equalizes or accounts for
the variance in the size of the group samples as well as
the unequal sex distribution within the sampleso Thea
test procedure for testing for significance among multi—
ple adjusted means is approximately equal to Duncan's
Multiple Means test up to and including three treatment

means.A Relational and predictive statistics were obtained

James Harlen Green

by simple correlations with z' transformation analyses to
permit testing for differences between correlations.

Hypothesis testing indicates a significant differ-
ence exists between special educators and regular teach-
ers on contact frequency and intensity of attitudes toward
physically disabled persons. Special educators had more
frequent contact and more intense attitudes toward the
physically handicapped. A significant difference was
found with regard to progressive attitudes toward edu-
cation,.but no significant difference between groups was
evident for traditional attitudes and frequency of con-
tact.

There is support for the theoretical position that
contact with the disabled is significantly related to
enjoyment of the contact and is significantly different
for special educators and regular teachers. Frequency of
contact with education was related to alternatives, ene
Joyment, and avoidance in the direction hypothesized with
significant differences between the groups.

.Hypotheses_were tested relating value orientations
to attitudes toward disabled persons and attitudes toward
traditional and progressive education. The Surveyiof
Interpersonal Values was used to assess "asset" and
"comparative" orientations. No differences were found
to disconfirm the hypotheses for attitudes toward dis-

abled persons as effected by the value orientation.

James Harlen Green

However, there were significant differences between
special educators and regular classroom teachers in

their attitudes toward education as effected by value
orientations, but opposite the predicted direction on
both Leadership and Recognition (i.e., comparative orien-
tation).

It was hypothesized that no differences would exist
between the groups on Benevolence (asset orientation),
attitudes toward the physically handicapped, and progres—
sive attitudes while holding sex constant.. The findings
were only significant for progressive attitudes toward
education.

Limited support was evident from the hypotheses
testing of change orientation variables with only one
significant difference evident between special educators
and regular teachers. The difference was on child rear-
ing practices, but opposite to the proposed departure from
the status quo and high relation to progressivism that had
been postulated for special educators.

It was hypothesized that special educators would
differ significantly from regular teachers in regard to
the following: (a) more favorable attitudes toward dis-
abled persons, (b) higher mean Benevolence and lower mean
Leadership and Recognition value scores, (c) higher mean
progressive and lower mean traditional attitudes toward

education, (d) higher mean score on change orientation

James Harlen Green

variables,.and (e) higher mean scores on amount of contact
with mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed persons.’
No differences were found between special educators and
regular teachers on attitudes toward physically disabled
persons or on asset-comparative orientation (Benevolence,
Leadership and Recognition). There were significant
'differences between groups on the traditional and progres-
sive attitude scores.in the direction hypothesized with
special educators being more progressive. Significant
differences between special educators and regular teachers
were found onthe change orientation variables of child
rearing and health practices, and with support for the
predicted direction of the hypotheses.

Recommendations have been made relating to instru-
mentation, sampling procedures, statistical analysis, and
to the findings of the study. The model for the selection
and scaling of attitude items as developed by Guttman
would be useful for further study. This model, known as
"facet design" attempts to substructure an attitude uni-
verse into logically established components.

A stratified random sample was obtained and it is
suggested that personal contact, explanation, and ade-
quate follow-up, expedite response to questionnaires in
survey research.

The findings cast some doubt on the relationship

of values to attitudes toward the physically handicapped

James Harlen Green

and towerd education. It is recommended that further
exploration be made of the value-attitude relationship.
It is suggested that further differentiation of
the special educators and regular classroom teachers
be made. The results of the present study indicate
that both groups are diverse in composition and inter-
ests. These diversities no doubt were influential in
the failure to reject a number of hypotheses.

l of "comparisons" within and

Further investigation
between the two groups of the study on designated vari-
ables as well as further investigation of the relation-
ships between variables (e.g., contact frequency and
intensity) is necessary if the attitude-contact-knowl-

edge-value matrix is to be fully understood.

 

1This study of attitudes toward education and to—
ward handicapping conditions is in progress in countries
in Europe, Latin America, Asia, and the United States
under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan of Michigan
State University.

ATTITUDES OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS VERSUS REGULAR
TEACHERS TOWARD THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

AND TOWARD EDUCATION IN MICHIGAN

By

James Harlen Green

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Education
Department of Counseling, Personnel Services,
and Educational Psychology

1967

c. 4345?.“
3 _, ")» A?»

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 instrumentation, theoretical material, as well as
technical, and analyses procedures were both necessary
and desirable.

The authors, therefore, collaborated in many re-
spects 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 re-
view of literature chapter in each of the individual in-
vestigations.

The interpretations of the data are those of the
author and have attempted to make a contribution to the
broader research program developed by Dr. John E. Jordan

at Michigan State University.

11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several people contributed to this research who are
not acknowledged individually. I extend a sincere "thank
you" to each, for without the cooperation of teachers,
and the administration of the public schools of Michigan,
this dissertation would not have been possible.

Appreciation is extended to my major adviser, Dr.
John E. Jordan, who has been patient, always ready to
provide encouragement and counsel throughout my doctoral
program. I am also indebted to the members of my doctbral
committee: Dr. James Costar, Dr. Alfred Dietze, and Dr.
Floyd Parker.

I wish to thank Miss Susan Speer for her assistance
as computer programmer, Miss Katherine Morris for her work
in scoring and tabulating, and to Mrs. Carolyn Piersma and
Mrs. Ann Brown who prepared this manuscript for publication.

I am also grateful to Mr. John Francis, Superinten-
dent and Mr. George Kallos, Director of Special Education
of the Shiawassee Intermediate Office of Education who
were supportive and cooperative during completion of my

doctoral program.

111

I am especially grateful to my wife, Esther, and
to my children, Richard, Rodney, and Gregory, who were
understanding and gave inspiration when it was most

needed. To them this thesis is dedicated.

iv

Page
PREFACE . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . ix
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES . xv
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . 1
Nature of the Problem . . . 1
Statement of the Problem . . 8
Research Hypotheses. . . . . . 11
Definition of Terms. . . . . . 13
II. BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH 20
General Theoretical Considerations. . 21
Empirical Research Relating Value and
Personal Contact to Attitude. . 21
Theoretical Framework . . . 2A
Attitudes Toward Physical
Disability. . . . 2A
Attitudes Toward Education 28
Attitude Intensity . . . 31
Personal Contact. . . . 33-
Empirical Research on Attitudes. 35
Toward the Physically Disabled 35
Toward Education. 46

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
‘ The Measurement of Attitudes . . . .
General Considerations . . . . .>
Scale Analysis. . . . . . . .
III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . .

Research Population . . . . . . .
General Considerations . . . . .
Selection of Variables . . . .- . .

*Attitudes Toward Physical Disability
The Intensity Scales. . . ._ . .
Interpersonal Values. . . . . .

JrPersonal Contact Variables. . . .

+Preferences for Personal Relation-

ships. . . . . .
Institutional Satisfaction.
Change Orientation . . .

“Demographic Variables . .

tReligiosity. . .1 . . .

*Collection of Data . . . . . . .
*Statistical Procedures

*Descriptive. . . . . . .
Scale and Intensity Analysis . . .
Mean Differences Analyses . . . .
iRelational and/or Predictive
Analyses. . . . . . .
’Level of Significance . . . . .

Statistical Hypotheses . . . . . .

*Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre-
quency and Attitude Scores. . .

rHypotheses Related to Attitude-
Value Interaction. . . . .

xHypotheses Related to Character-
istics of Regular Teachers and
of Special Educators. . . . .

Hypotheses Related to Character-

istics of Those Working Directly
with the Physically Disabled . .

vi

Page

51

51
53

56
57
57
58
23C

62
63
65
66
66
67
68

68
72

72
7A

76
78
78

78
80

83

8A

Chapter Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . 87
Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . 87
Differences in Education, Income, and
Age Between Respondent Groups . . 88
Summary of Descriptive Data in
Table 3 e o o e o o o e o 91

Section 2: Hypothesis Testing, Mean
Differences, and Correlationsl.
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 92

Hypotheses Related to Contact Fre-
quency, Intensity, and Attitude

Scores. . . . 92
Hypotheses Related to Attitude and

Value Interactions. . . . . 99
Hypotheses Related to Change Orien—

tation and Attitude Scores . . . 106
Zero- Order Correlations Between

Attitudes and Values . . 110

Hypothesis Related to Characteristics
of Those Working Directly with the
Physically Disabled . . . . . 11“

V. ‘SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 122
Part I: Summary of the Theoretical

and Methodological Issues . . . . 122

Nature of the Problem. ' . . . . . 122

Summary of Theory . . 123

Summary of Hypotheses Construction . 126
Summary of Instrumentation . . . . 127
Summary of Statistical Procedures. . 129
Summary of the Sample . . . . . 130

Part II: Discussion of the Results and
Implications of Hypothesis Testing . 130

Hypotheses Relating to Contact Fre-

quency and Intensity . . . 131
Hypotheses Related to Attitude and
- Value Interactions . . . . . 135
Change Variables as Related to

Attitude Scores. . . . . . . 139

vii

Chapter Page

Hypotheses Related to Characteris-
tics of Those Working Directly

with the Physically Disabled . . 1A1
Summary of Hypothesis Testing. . . 146
Part III: Recommendations. . . . . 149

Recommendations Relating to the

Instruments. . . . . . . 149
Recommendations Regarding Sampling
Procedures . . . . . . . . 150
Recommendations Regarding Statisti-
cal Analysis . . . . . . 151
Recommendations Relating to the
Findings of the Study . . . . 152
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180

viii

Table Page

1. Distribution of Respondents According to
Occupation and Sex . . . . . . . . 88

2. Stratified Random Sample of Elementary and
Secondary Teachers-—Michigan. . . . . 89

3. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations,
and t Statistic in Respect to Three Demo-
graphic Variables for Amount of Education,
Income, and Age Comparing Special Edu-
cators and Regular Classroom Teachers. . 90

4. Interpretation of Education Scores in Terms
of Actual Educational Attainment . . . 9l_

5. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Inten-
sity Scores on the Attitude-Toward-Dis-
abled-Persons (ATDP) Scale, Controlling
for Frequency of Contact . . . . . . 93

6. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Inten—
sity Scores on the Progressive-Attitude-
Toward-Education (FATE) Scale, Control-
ling for Frequency of Contact . . . . 95

7. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Inten-
sity Scores on the Traditional-Attitude-
TowardeEducation (TATE) Scale, Control-
ling for Frequency of Contact . . . . 95

8. Zero-Order Correlations Between Amount of
Contact with Disabled Persons and Inten-
sity Scores on Attitudes-Toward-Disabled—
Persons Scale, and the Progressive and
Traditional Attitude Scales for Special
Educators and Regular Classroom
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . 96

ix

Table Page

9. Sample Size, Simple Correlations, the 2,
Values, and a Statement of Significance
in Comparing Special Educators and Regu-
lar Classroom Teachers on the Relation—
ship Between Frequency of Contact with
Disabled Persons and Alternatives, En—
joyment, and Avoidance of Contacts . . . 97

10. Sample Size, Simple Correlations, the 2
Values and a Statement of Significance
in Comparing Special Educators and Regu-
lar Classroom Teachers on the Relation-
ship Between Frequency of Contact with
Education and Alternatives, Enjoyment,
and Avoidance of Contacts . . . . . . 98

11. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Attitude-Toward-Disabled-Persons
Scale as Effected by Leadership Value
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

12. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Progressive— Attitudes- Toward-
Education Scale as Effected by Leadership
Value Scores . . . . . . 101

13. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Traditional- Attitudes- Toward
Education Scale as Effected by Leadership
Value Scores . . . . . . 101

1A. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Attitude— Toward- Disabled- Persons
Scale as Effected by Recognition Value
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 103

15. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Traditional- Attitudes- Toward—
Education Scale as Effected by Recogni-
tion Value Scores. . . . . 103

Table Page

16. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Progressive —Attitudes— Toward—
Education Sc ale as Effected by Recogni-
tion Value Scores. . . . . . . 104

17. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Attitude-Toward-Disabled-Persons
Scale as Effected by Benevolence Value
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . ION

18. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Traditional-Attitude-Toward—Edu-
cation Scale as Effected by Benevolence
Value Scores . . . . . . . . . . 105

19. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
of the Progressive-Attitude-Toward—Edu-
cation Scale as Effected by Benevolence
Value Scores . . . . . . . . . . 105

20. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers, (While
Holding Sex Constant) on Benevolence,
Attitudes Toward the Disabled, the Pro-
gressive-Attitude-Toward-Education
Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

21. Sample Size, Simple Correlations, the z
Values, and a Statement of Significance
in Comparing Special Educators and Regu-
lar Classroom Teachers on Attitudes To-
ward Disabled Persons as Related to
Health, Child Rearing, and Birth Control
Practices . . . . . . . . . 108

xi

Table Page

22. Sample Size, Simple Correlations, the 2
Values, and a Statement of Significance
in Comparing Special Educators and Regu—
lar Classroom Teachers on TATE and PATE
as They Relate to Health, Child Rearing,
and Birth Control Practices . . . . . 109

23. Zero—Order Correlations Between Attitudes-
Toward-Disabled-Persons Scale (Content)
and the Gordon Value Scale for Special
Educators and Regular Classroom
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . 111

2A. Zero-Order Correlations Between Progressive
(P) and Traditional (T) Education Scales
(Content) and the Gordon Value Scale for
Special Educators and Regular Classroom
Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . 112

25. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Mean
Scores of the ATDP Scale . . . . . . 11A

26. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
E Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Mea-
sures of Benevolence, Recognition, and
Leadership . . . . . . . . . . 115

27. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations, and
E Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Scores
Indicating Progressive or Traditional
Attitudes Toward Education . . . . . 116

28. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations, and
F Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Change
Orientation Variables of Health, Child
Rearing, and Birth Control Practices . . 117

29. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviation, and
E Statistic Comparing Special Educators
and Regular Classroom Teachers on Fre—
quency of Contact with the Mentally Re-
tarded (MR) the Emotionally Disturbed
Persons (EDP). . . . . . . . . . 118

xii

Table Page

30. Sample Size, Means, Standard Deviations,
and F Statistic Comparing Regular Ele-
mentary and Secondary Classroom Teachers
on ATDP, PATE, TATE, Benevolence, and
Leadership . . . . . . . 120

31. Summary of Hypotheses 1 Through 12 Indicating
Acceptance or Rejection of Each Statisti-
cal Null Hypothesis and Directionality of
the Research Hypothesis. . . . . 121

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The Geographical Representation of the
Michigan Counties from Which the Sample
of Special Educators and Regular Teach-
ers Were Taken . . . . . . . . . 69

xiv

Appendix
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-A
A-S
A-6
B-l
B-2

B-3

B-u

LIST OF APPENDICES

Definitions of Physical Handicap

Education Scale.

Survey of Interpersonal Values.

Personal Questionnaire . . . . .

Handicapped Persons Scale (ATDP)

Personal Questionnaire (HP).

Basic Variables of the Study

Code Book.

Special Instructions and FCC I and FCC
II Variable-Computer Print-Out Code

Forms . . .

Data Transcription Sheet. . . . .

XV

Page
181'
183
191
199
217
225
231
237

267
273

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Technological change has, rather suddenly, posed a
dramatic challenge to political, economic, social, and
educational institutions. Though the full scope of this
challenge may not be comprehended for years, its dimen—
sions are now clear enough to call for a massive response
on the part of American education. All levels of edu-
cation must quickly move to assume greater responsibili—
ties for preparing men and women for entry into the changed
.ahd changing world of technological work and consequently
£1 changing social structure.

The most significant aspect of the new technology
3L5: described by the word change. Only those who can adapt
t:<> change will survive. The concept of change is not new;
‘lelat is new is the change in the rate of change. Political,

€3<3<onomic, and psychological implications of such change

d emand serious considerat ion .

Nature of the Problem
The landmark of technological developments has been
the introduction of automation and computers into all

IDF3~EEL£ses of life. Automation encompasses a class of devices

that automatically perform both the sensing and the motor
tasks formerly performed by human labor. Thus, automated
machines can and will replace men and women in the vo-
cational world. Computers are devices which rapidly per-
form traditional human tasks involving experience, memory,
analysis, logic, and decision—making. Such devices now
can diagnose symptoms for the physician, research a case
for the lawyer, read envelopes for the postman, analyze
market portfolios for the broker, design a plant for the
architect, prepare war and defense plans for the military,
fly missiles for the scientist, screen volunteers for the
Peace Corps, and keep inventory for the merchant. These
1nachines.are being "taught" to translate languages, com-
;aose music, play chess, transcribe speech, and "see" ob-
;Iects; already they correct their mistakes and identify
txrouble spots in their mechanism.
Berg observes that:

Many people will be surplus and, furthermore, they
will know it. They will not be the silent, bowed
men of-toil, but rather the trained persons who have
up until now been mainstays in our society, who have
skills to offer, but skills which society no longer
needs. Eventually we shall find a solution, but the
period of searching for answers, the period we are
just now entering, will be a time of increasing
upheaval and social torment. It seems highly
probable that we shall be faced with problems of
delinquency and crime beside which our present
problems in these areas will be dwarfed almost to
invisibility. It also seems highly probable that
the frequency of disorder such as alcoholism, de-
pressions, neurotic reactions, etc., will vastly
increase (Berg, 1965, p. 204).

Western cultures have tended to validate their
identities through physical work. Here the impact of
change will be keenly felt, and the threat of automation
becomes a reality as it tends to destroy man's effort to
find himself. In a highly mechanized society validating
"identity-through-work" is already meaningless. No longer
will hard physical work as such ensure a meaningful
identity.

‘Tgaditionally the disabled or handicapped person had
limited opportunities to gain an identity based on vo-
cationa1_skills. In the United States serious efforts
have been made to correct this deficiency through federal
and state rehabilitation programs. However, it appears
to this author that it will be necessary to carefully re-
evaluate the rehabilitation programs for the physically,
:1ntellectually, and emotionally handicapped. We now en-

cieavor to promote a positive self image by giving them

askllls through which they may become productive and self-
Estastaining individuals. While the intent of this effort
is unquestionably admirable, the disabled, who already
carry an extra burden, will increasingly discover that his
"new found" work skills are not needed.

Hess asks the provocative question:

What is the future of the disabled individual in an

automated economy? He has some grounds for hope

when he observes that automation is reducing physi-
cal demands and eliminating safety hazards in jobs,
thereby making jobs compatible with many more types-

of handicapping conditions. But, even though the
physical and mental requirements of a job may now

be within the tolerance of the handicapped indi-
vidual, he is not necessarily assured of equal
consideration in the sharp competition at the per-
sonnel office. Employers, as they ponder the
choice between a large number of available candi-
dates, need to insure against discrimination on
the basis of the presence or absence of capacities
unrelated to the requirements of the job (Hess,
1963, p. 156). '

Familiar landmarks which may have served as cul—
tural reference points and provided a means of validating
personal identities are being swept away by the tidal wave
of change. There will not be a choice of whether or not-
change-should occur, but how will it occur.

An increasing concern of educators should be that
change occur in socially responsible ways. Berg (1965),
has noted that_while ". . . we know something of attitudes
and how to measure them . .‘. we must discover how to
change them efficiently. We shall have to gain this
knowledge rapidly . . ." (p. 203). .Theimportance of the

:identification and modification of attitudes as they re-

lateto the disabled should be evident to many profession-

éalls, but especially to educators.

_ A challenge that confronts educators is that of
<1?:111ding culturally relevant ways of helping the disabled
individual validate his identity. Furthermore, if this
Search isvgoing to be successful, the validation must be

based on a model thatemphasizes the intrinsic worth of

IrléaLrirather than some other preconceived standard. As'

:3 Qinted out by Mader (1967) it appears that a society

where the attitudes of individuals are important to the
success of handicapped citizens, some evaluation of those
attitudes held by special educators may be of value (p.
2).

VT6 date limited interest has been demonstrated in
the attitudes of special educators on how their attitudes
compare with regular teachers in regard to the physically
handicapped. In view of the increased demand for teachers
of the handicapped, concern for selection and training,
as well as the development of programs and integration of
the handicapped into regular classes, such investigation

{Wand comparison of attitudes would seem to be of value.
Physical disability is a problem of increasing COD?
cern. Medical advances, and their dissemination through-
out the world via public health agencies, have markedly
;reduced death rates (Davis, 1963). A major consequence is
sin increase in the number of children with physical dis-
Eibilities who in previous years would have died in infancy,
(Myerson, 1963, pp. 2, 3).
Fundamental to both the program of social develop-
ment, and to*the establishment of cooperativeaexchanges
'Eirruong professionals in the United States, is the acqui-
5331—1:ion of normative data about attitudes of various
I'ZI-raterest groups" toward special education and rehabili-
t:‘Eah‘tion. This was considered the foremost cross-national,

Jr‘SEE'Esearch-need by the research group of the Second

International Seminar on Special Education at Nyborg,
Denmark, in July, 1963.
The Division on Child Development of the Commission
on Teacher Education (1945), presented a list of the
major deterrents to learning and adjustment that occur.
Cain (1949), responding to the report states, "Such a
report implies, if these indictments be true of children
in general, that the problems are increased for the handi—
capped child" (p. 276). There has been some awareness on
the part of educators in the United States for a long time
that the attitudes held by teachers are important to the-
children they serve. Research of these attitudes has
been sparce and lacking in a theoretically relevant base.
A comprehensive research study aimed at uncovering
similarities and differences in attitudes toward physical
ciisability, and education must solve difficult methodo-
Jxogical and technical problems, both to make research~
zacossible within a culture and social system, and to make
fiLt: comparable. Such a study should have an orienting
t3t1eory, broad enough to be relevant to researchers, teach-
er's, and-other special education and rehabilitation per-
s<31'7lnelwithin the various disciplines involved. This
theory should make possible the integration of findings
int 0 a more general conceptual framework and should in-
cbe ase the power and scope of the study, providing an
c”17’£1.enting purpose beyond the immediate practical objec-

ti Ves of the research (e.g., Goods and Hatt, 1952, PPo

While being cognisant of this more general framework
the theoretical problem to be studied in the present re-
search is restricted to the prediction of certain corre-
lates of attitude. The main focus of study will allow not
only an analysis of the relationship between certain
variables having to do with interpersonal values, personal
contact, and attitude,(but will permit a comparison be-
tween a group of special educators and regular teachersjB
The comparison will involve an analysis of similarities
and differences in attitudes held by the two groups to-
ward the physically handicapped and toward the educational
process. The design has the advantage of allowing data
to be utilized in several studies in an ongoing inter-
national researchproject.l

There has not, to this writer's knowledge, been any
attempt to determine and compare the attitudes of special
(educators and "regular" educators either toward the physi-

czally handicapped or toward education in general.

Felty (1965), in his pilot study in Costa Rica con-
(Beerning attitudes toward physical disability and their
determinants, demonstrated the comparability of attitudes

(Dif‘ specific interest groups. His study developed a

IneEthodology and techniques that facilitate such

\

ES 1Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan,

c.1“:?-£ate University has several doctoral students under his

E3 :l-Jrection in the larger international cross-cultural re-
e arch project .

comparisons. Both the methodology and techniques were
used by Friesen (1966) and Mader (1967). The approach
in this present study also used the methodology and
techniques and the data obtained can be used for com-
parative purposes primarily with Mader's (1966) study.
Such a technique not only increases the amount of data
available for comparative purposes, but will ultimately
allow for much more comprehensive cross—cultural com-

. parisons. The fact that this data can be utilized in the
stated manner represents a secondary objective of this
study.and lends support to the utilization of the tech-
niques and methods to be described. Furthermore, a
broader theoretical base may be established for generali-

zability and heuristic value.

Statement of the Problem

 

This study is part of a comprehensive attempt to
leesearch attitudes toward the physically disabled and to-
vvard education as a social institution. The comprehensive
Study can bebriefly described as being concerned with ,the

interrelationship between:

1. Differing national or socio—economic patterns,
that is developing vs. developed nations, rural
vs. urban patterns, non-industrialized vs. in-
dustrialized nations, etc.;

2. Differing value systems, both intra-national.

and inter-national;

3. Differing "contact" methods and systems for
experience with the social object called
"the physically disabled" or "education";

4. Differing norms of the various countries and
groups specified in respect to various psycho-
logical, sociological, and economic measures
and indices.

Underlying the comprehensive study is the assumption
that there is value in determining attitudes toward edu-.
cation as-a factor affecting the development, funding, and
organization of educational programs. It is implicit in
this interest that educational programs can be most ef-
fectively developed or changed through an awareness of
these attitudes.

The purpose of this study is to investigate technical,
methodological, and theoretical considerations relating to
the investigation of the comparative attitudes of special
educators (Mader, 1967) versus regular teachers toward
physically handicapped persons and toward education. An
attempt will be made to utilize a set of instruments which
will elicit attitudes toward disability and toward edu-
cation and enable a comparison of these attitudes for the
selected groups.

The instruments used for this study will be the

same as those used by Mader in his study of Attitudes of

 

Special Educators Toward the Physically Handicapped and

IO

Toward Education (1967), which is also part of the com-
prehensive study at Michigan State University.

The selection of teachers in Michigan provides a
population similar in language and culture with the
special educators, but with an assumed different oriene
tation toward physical disability. A determination will
be made of the extent to which various special educators
have differing value systems as compared to classroom
teachers as applied to the handicapped. VMany investi-
gators of a social-psychological orientation (Barker gg_gl.,
1963, p. 103; Gowman, 1957, pp. 47ff, and Wright, 1960,
pp. 14-15) have suggested that values are important de-.
terminants of attitudes. l"’Ifltis generally assumed that
persons who perceive the handicapped as having intrinsic
worth are likely to hold more favorable attitudes toward
the handicapped than those who view the disabled as hav—
ing comparative value of an absolute nature. It_is neces-
sary that a determination be made as to whether various
groups of educators have differing concepts of the in-
trinsic worth of the handicapped. This study will attemp
to determine and compare the attitudes of the regular
classroom teacher to the findings for the special edu-
cation personnel as determined by Mader (1967).

Psychological theory also indicates that the amount
and kind of interpersonal contact with a subgroup are

determinants of attitudes.

11

Thus, one problem is to determine whether this
particular value-attitude relationship can be obtained.
Secondly, the problem is to determine the amounts and
kinds of experiences that respondents have with disabled
persons and to relate this data to attitude scores. How-
ever, another problem will be to determine the relation-
ship of alternatives to contact as determinants of atti-
tude scores.

It will also be possible to gather various kinds
of personal and demographic data in addition_to the in-
formation specified by the main hypotheses of the study.
Modern computer analysis techniques make it possible to
exploit interrelationships among diverse data of this
sort in ways which may provide subsequent researchers with
suggestive relationships and may even suggest subsequent

research predictions.

Research Hypotheses
The following statement of hypotheses1 are written
in research form for the purpose of expressing in a
succinct form the implications of the present study.
These hypotheses are concerned with attitudes toward
physical disability and toward education.
*1. The more frequent the contact with physically

handicapped persons, the greater will be the

 

lThese hypotheses are restated in testable (null)
form in Chapter III.

_ 2k

in:
CO

intensity component of the handicapped persons
scale.

High frequency of contact, personal involvement
with the handicapped, and favorable attitude
toward the handicapped will be intercorrelated.
The more the belief content of an attitude is
instrumental to value maintenance, the more
favorable will be the evaluation of the object
of the attitude.

There will be a positive relationship between
high asset values (Gordon Scale B) and favorable
attitudes toward physically handicapped persons.
There will be a negative relationship between
high comparative values (Gordon Scale R) and
attitudes toward physically disabled persons.
Value scales of Support, Conformity, Independence,
and Leadership will be unrelated or negatively
related to favorable attitudes toward disability.
There will be a positive relationship between
progressive attitudes toward education and,
favorable attitudes toward the physically handi-
capped. ,

There will be a negative relationship between
satisfaction with local institutions (e.g.,

the status quo) and favorable.attitudes toward

the physically handicapped.

13

9. Women will score higher on the value scales
of Benevolence, Conformity, and Support than
will men.

10. Women will score higher on the Handicapped
Persons Scale than men.

11. People working in special education and re-
habilitation will score higher on the Gordon
Benevolence sub-scale than will other edu-

cational groups.

Definition of Terms

The following terms need to be operationally defined
as used in this study:

Attitude.--The sense in which this general term will
be used follows the definition by Guttman (1950, p. 51).
An attitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with re-
spect to something. For example, the attitude of a person
toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of acts
that a person has performed with respect to Negroes." Use
of this definition is consistent with the attempt to use
some of Guttman's concepts in respect to scale and in-
tensity 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 typically considered are

those of belief and intensity, although Guttman defines

14

additional components according to certain mathematical
properties. In this study, the first component will be
that of item content (or belief), the second that of item
intensity (of. Guttman, 1950, Ch. 9; Suchman, 1950, Ch. 7).

Attitude Content.--The attitude content component

 

refers to the actual item statements within an attitude
scale.

Attitude Intensity.--The attitude intensity com-

 

ponent refers to the affective statements that a respon-
dent makes regarding each content item; operationally, it
consists of a separate statement for each attitude item

on which the respondent may indicate how strongly he feels
about the statement.

Attitude Scale.--As used in this study, a scale is

 

a set of items which fall into a particular relationship
in respect to the ordering of respondents. A set of items
can be said to form a scale if each person's responses to
each item can be reproduced from the knowledge of his
total score on the test within reasonable limits of error
(e.g., Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3; Stouffer, 1950, Ch. l)°
Demographic Variables.--Specifically, this refers in
the present study to certain statistical data frequently
used in sociological studies. These variables are age,
sex, education, income, rental, occupation, number of
siblings, occupational and residential mobility, and

whether the respondent spent his youth in a rural or urban

p4
\TI

setting. Data on these variables were secured through
responses of respondents on questionnaire items.

Educational Progressivism.—-A ten-item scale of

 

progressive attitudes toward education developed by Ker-
1inger (1958).

Educational Traditionalism.--A ten-item scale of

 

traditional attitudes toward education developed by
Kerlinger (1958). These measures do not constitute
scales as defined for the present study, but rather are
constituted of items which appeared in factor analytic
studies, and which were characterized by the terms which
identify the scales.

Handicap. This term signifies the social dis-
advantages placed upon a physically impaired person by
virtue of the impairment. A handicap is a consequence
of culturally held values and attitudes which serve to
define the physically impaired person socially.

Impairment.--This term signifies a defect in tissue
or in body structure. As such it has no particular
functional connotations.

Physical Disability.--This is a functional term de-
noting some loss of the tool function of the body. In
the English version of the scale the term "handicapped"
was used since this appeared to be a more meaningful
terminology. The technical distinction between handi-
cap and disability is perhaps not a very meaningful or

significant one to a lay person

l6

Rehabilitation.—-A term signifying "restoration of

 

the disabled to the fullest physical, mental, social, and
vocational usefulness possible" (Jordan, 1964b).

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 doing their job in the com-
munity. These institutions were schools, business, labor,
government, health services, and churches.

Occupational Personalism.--This term is operationally

 

defined by questionnaire items designed to ascertain:
first, about what per cent 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 characteristic
of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960).

Relational Diffusion.--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 dif-
fusion between the social milieu and occupational milieu
is sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic
of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960).

Religiosity.-—A term used to denote orientation to

 

religion. Operationally, it is defined by three items:

17

first, religious preference; second, the importance of
religion; third, the extent to which the rules and regu-
lations of the religion are followed.

Special Education.--Following Kirk (1962, p. 29)

 

this term characterized educational practices "that are
unique, uncommon, of unusual quality, and in particular
are in addition to the organization and instructional
procedures used with the majority of children." Jordan
(1964b, p. 1) has commented: "the basic aim of special
education is to prevent a disability from becoming a
handicap."

Xalgg.--Two value terms are used, but defined
operationally by the same set of measures. Asset values
predispose a person to evaluate others according to their
own unique potentials and characteristics. Comparative
values predispose a person to evaluate others according
to external criteria of success and achievement (Wright,
1960, pp. 128-133). Operationally these values are de-
fined by three scales on the Survey of Interpersonal
Values (Gordon, 1960). Asset values will be measured by
the Benevolence Scale, Comparative Values by the Recog—
nition and Leadership Scales. These three scales were
judged by the investigator to have adequate face validity
for the measurement of the values proposed by Wright.
Additional value orientations measured by the Gordon
Survey of Interpersonal Values are labeled Support, Con-

formity, and Independence.

18

Teachers of the Educable Retarded.--Individuals
possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and
state approval as teachers of the retarded who are
currently teaching in state approved programs for the
educable child.

Teachers of the Trainable Retarded.—-Individuals
possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and
state approval as teachers of the retarded who are cur—
rently teaching in state approved programs for the train-
able child.

Teachers of the Acoustically Handicapped.-—Indi-
viduals possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate
and state approval as teachers of the deaf and hard of'
hearing who are currently teaching in state approved pro-
.grams.for the acoustically handicapped child.

Teachers of the Visually Handicapped.-—Individuals
,zaossessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and
satiate approval as teachers of the blind and partially

Sighted who are currently teaching in state approved
IDCZ‘CSgrams for the visually handicapped child.
Speech Correctionists.--Individuals possessing a
'V'EELZLid Michigan Teacher's Certificate and state approval
EiJEB Speech correctionists who are currently teaching in
3 t ate approved programs for children with speech handi-
c 8-D s .
Visiting Teacher.--Individuals possessing a valid

I\’I:I“_<3‘-1':ligan Teacher's Certificate and state approval as

19

visiting teachers who are currently serving in state ap-
proved programs for children with marginal emotional
problems.

Diagnosticians.—-Individuals possessing a valid

 

Michigan Teacher's Certificate or its equivalent with
state approval as a diagnostician who are currently serv—
ing in state approved programs for the mentally retarded.

Elementary Classroom Teacher (K-6).—-Individuals
possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate to teach
kindergarten through the sixth grade and currently teach
in the public schools of Michigan.

Secondary Classroom Teacher (7-12).--Individuals
possessing a valid Michigan Teacher's Certificate to teach
in grades seven through twelve and currently-teach in the
L>ublic schools of Michigan.

Interest Group.--Any group that, on the basis of
cxne or more shared attitudes, makes certain claims upon
c>1:her groups in the society to engage in particular forms

<>;f‘ behavior. Associational interest groups work as 001?

L1.e3<stivities to exert influence (Almond and Coleman, 1960).

CHAPTER II
BACKGROUND OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH

Much of the research in special education and re-
habilitation emphasizes applied, descriptive studies which
use instruments and techniques individually designed for a
given study and which consequently lack generality and
theoretical relevance. Various investigators in special
education and rehabilitation have urged more attention to
theory and generality of results. This suggests that atti-
tude studies in special education and rehabilitation should
take account of general psychological and social psycho-
;logical findings in respect to attitudes--their formation,
artructure, and effects--and should if possible use concepts
£311d instrumentation in testing hypotheses which can be ap-
plied‘by other investigators.

Mader (1967) pointed out in his comprehensive review
of the literature that he found no study that attempted to
determine attitudes held by special educators toward physi-
Cally handicapped children. It was. further indicated that
no research had made a comparison of the attitudes of
Spe cial educators with"'regu1ar" classroom teachers in re-

gard to physical disability or education in general.

20

21

General Theoretical Considerations
The term theory is considered at a level of partially
verified propositions which have been placed within a per-

spective which suggests a kind of interrelationship and

order among them. These propositions are what are referred

‘to by Zetterberg (1963, p. 21) as "ordinary," rather than
isheoretical, with a varying degree of information value.

It standard research text suggests several ways in which-

t;heory may serve as.a tool of scientific research. These

sire consistent with the use of theory in this study:

(a) it defines the major orientation of a science,
by defining the kinds of data which are to be

abstracted;
(b) it offers a conceptual scheme by which the

relevant phenomena are systematized, classified,

and interrelated;
(c) it summarizes facts into empirical generali-

zations and systems of generalizations;

(d) it predicts facts; and
(e) it points to gaps in our knowledge (Goods and.

Hatt, 1952, p. 8).

The following sections discuss the theoretical orien-
t3£33tions of the study, how these relate to the field of
‘I31hlzysical disability and education, and some empirical find-
3L1211gs which seem to be of significance within the particular
theoretical orientation. These are the considerations re-

SIDCJnsible for the research hypotheses.

Empirical Research Relating Value and.
*Personal‘Contact'tO'Attitude

Values have been considered important sources of

D“peJudice, or negative stereotype by Allport (1958).

22

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 af-
firming our way of life often leads us to the brink

of prejudice (p. 24).

Man has a prOpensity to prejudice. This propensity
lies in his normal and natural 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 un-
warranted prejudgments is our personal values" (p. 27).
Katz (1960) suggests another approach relating atti-

1:ude to value in which attitudes are considered to have a

"value—expressive function" (p. 173). They confirm and

clarify to others and to the person himself those things

Ituost important and central to his image. Katz views the

Jreelatedness of attitude to value in terms of attitude
<311ange, pointing out that "people are much less likely to
find their values uncongenial than they are to find some. of
their attitudes. inappropriate to their values" (p. 189).
Thus, consistency between basic values ("equality") and more.
sE>ecific attitudes (e.g., "favorableness toward opportunities
3f‘<:>r disabled persons") would be expected, as persons would.
be generally more inclined to change or give up attitudes
inconsistent or unrelated to central values.

An instrumental relationship between attitude and

value has been demonstrated. Stable positive attitudes

E341?ێ perceived as instrumental to positive value attainment

E34r1<1 the blocking of negative values, whereas.stable

23

negative attitudes were perceived as instrumental to nega-
tive value attainment and the blocking of positive values.
"The individual tends to relate positive attitude objects
to goal attainment and negative attitude objects to frus-
tration of his goal orientation" (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 321).
Moderate attitudes (as compared to intense ones) were re-
.1ated to less important values, or in the case of important
'values the perceived instrumentality of the attitude to
xlalue attainment was unclear to the subject.

Rosenberg's analysis enabled him to broaden the con-

czept of attitude to include both the positive—negative

Eiffective component and the belief component. Typically,

 

£11:titudes have been concerned with the former, and beliefs

<=<>nsidered separately; e.g., Allport (1958, pp. 12-13) in
C=<>nsidering prejudice, states: "There must be an attitude

<>:f‘ favor or disfavor; and it must be related to an over-

generalized (and therefore erroneous) belief." Osgood

C 21.957, p. 190) has restricted "attitude" to mean "the evalu-

iél1t:ive dimension of the total semantic space."
Several attitude research studies by Cartwright (1949),

‘Esljlith (1949) and Guttman (1950) have evidenced a preference

fer a broad concept of attitude.
Further research discussed by Rosenberg (1960, pp.

3 25--330) involved hypnosis and post-hynotic suggestionin

3respect to changing either beliefor affective components

and measuring related changes- While his conclusions were

!\)
-1“:

concerned primarily with attitude structure and change,
they also support the previously discussed research sug-
gesting that the instrumentality of a.belief to a valued
goal is associated with a corresponding and direction-re—
lated affective component.

Carlson (1956), studied changes in prejudicial atti-
‘tudes-(including affective and belief components) toward
Iqegro mobility according to perceived instrumentality to
£1 value involving property valuation. Attitudes became
.nnore favorable toward Negro movement into white neighbor-
}zoods as subjects' beliefs were changed from the view that
Negroes tend to lower propertyavalues, to the view'that

Negroes tend to raise property values. The change was
ascribed to an incpnsistency between the cognitive (belief)

component and the affective value component.

Theoretical.Framework

Attitudes Toward Physical

DETSability

As in the study by Mader (1967) an attempt will be
made to utilize the theoretical constructs developed by
lg‘eawflty (1965) in his pilot study of attitudes toward physi-
cal disability in Costa Rica.

The major theoretical orientation of the present
F‘313ucly’will be a social-psychological approach to physical
disability. The basic premises of this theoretical frame-

Vw‘:>1?l< are consistent with symbolic interactionism (Wright,

“0
U1

1960). Symbolic interactionism emphasizes the importance

of the give and take of interpersonal activity—-especially

in regards to symbol. There is a focus on rational,.

orderly processes rather than irrational processes. The

important constructs are those of self or person; other,
group, or reference group; attitude, social role, and
value, all as defined by the perceptions of the actor.
Within this framework, disability may be thought of not

as an objective thing-in-itself, but a social value judg-

:ment. Only the concepts of attitude and value will be ex-

;plored fully in this study.
liigh value for maintaining the social system, and people

Certain roles in society have

sire generally esteemed according to how they are perceived
13¢; fulfill valued social roles, thus attitudes toward dis-
ealiility should vary according to the kinds of social roles
perceived to be important to the individual, or collectively

to the society.
In particular, the theory of Festinger would suggest

'tilnat attitudes that are dissonant to a value orientation

‘~7<ould.tend to be abandoned, whereas consonant attitudes

1hrouldbe maintained (Rosenberg, 1960). Consistent generally

‘hfzith symbolic interaction, is the idea that actual contact
‘fl7:1th others is an important determinant of attitudinal
eValuation of them (Allport, 1958).

However, frequency of contact is not related to evalu-

a-tzlon in any simple sense. Contact frequency has been found

, ._
KII‘M“A7H ‘JIM

26

to be related directly to intensity of attitude (Guttman
and Foa, 1951). Whether it is also related directly to
a positive evaluation of the person seems to depend on
intermediate variables such as the social status of the
persons contacted, the absence of coercion in the inter-
action, and the availability of alternate kinds of rein-
forcing activities_(Zetterberg, 1963).

The underlying assumptions, according to Shibutani
(1961, pp. 22-25), are as follows:

1. Behavior is motivated through the give and take
of interpersonal adjustment, both the person
and society are products of communication.

2. Personality is continually reorganized and con-
structed in the day-by-day interactions with
others.

3. Culture consists of models of proper conduct-
hammered out and reinforced by communications
and by collective grappling with life conditions.

Underlying all these assumptions is a belief in the

Ir‘aational, active nature of man as a determiner of his own
-IFeate and that of society. Our concern will be with the
t>:rroad context of interpersonal contact, value organization,
Eidrnd role behavior, as determined by perceptions of the sub-
£I eacts, and their attitudinal implications.

A central concept of social psychology is that of
.EEETStitude. Katz and Stotland (19%A p. 466) in a review-
Eallfixi systematization of the concept, state:

An adequate social psychology must include the con—

cept of attitude or some very similar construct.

. . . Efforts to deal with the real world show our
need for a concept more flexible and more covert

than habit, more specifically oriented to social
objects than personality traits, less global than
value systems, more directive than beliefs, and more
ideational than motive pattern.

Levine suggested that disability is not a thing in
itself but a social value judgment and proposed the rele-
vance of this frame of reference for understanding of
physical disability.

These (i.e., social role, role perception, role

value and attitude) values are related to society's

perception of being a good citizen, being a family

head and other essential aspects for maintaining a

society. These values are criteria against which

behavior is assessed in terms of deviation. All
members of society, whether handicapped or not, are
evaluated primarily by these values. Where an indi-
vidual cannot meet these demands, or where there

are questions as to the adequacy of the individual

in relation to these demands, there will be some

devaluation of him on societies' part (Levine, 1961,

p. 84).

From this perspective, persons with some defining
characteristic such as blindness, crippling condition, color,
etc., are categorized according to how others perceive them
to maintain certain valued social roles.

A conceptual value framework should also be utilized
for the suggestions it offers in respect to dominant value
characteristics as specifically related to attitudes toward
physical disability. Values can be clustered according to
whether they are derived from: (a) comparisons, or from
(b) intrinsic assets (Dembo, Leviton, Wright, 1956; Wright,
1960).

If the evaluation is based on comparison with a.

standard the person is said to be invoking compara-

tive values. . . . 0n the other hand, if the evalu-
ation arises from the qualities inherent in the

28

object of judgment itself, the person is said to be
invoking asset values. What matters is the object
of judgment in a setting that has its own intrinsic
purposes and demands. The person's reaction is

then based upon how appropriately the situational
demands are fulfilled rather than on comparison with
a predetermined standard (Wright, 1960, p. 129).

VA reasonable inference from the asset-comparative
value framework, is that those persons working in the field
of rehabilitation and special education would be expected
to hold higher asset values than those working in other

occupations, including regular classroom teachers.

Attitudes Toward Education

That attitudes have relevancy to educational concerns
is suggested by the consistent inclusion of the topic atti-
tude in the various editions of the Encyclopedia of Edu-
cational Research. Stagner (1941, p. 77) has stated:

Many studies have shown a relationship between atti-

tude and information in a given area, suggesting

that people acquire most readily facts which are

congruent with their views. Attitudes are, there-

fore, basic to many educational activities. Atti-
tudes are also products of education; our progress
toward democracy at home and international cooper-
ation abroad will depend upon the attitudes developed
in children at school.

In special education and rehabilitation, attitudes
have been found related to the willingness of teachers to
accept certain kinds of handicapped children in regular
classes (Haring et a1., 1948) to acceptance-rejection by
other children to parental behavior, and to many other
types of behavior (as reviewed in Barker et a1., 1953;

Cruickshank, 1963; Wright, 1960).

Current literature has devoted much effort to the
exploration of the relationship of education to innovation-
and social change. However, Friesen (1966) pointed to the
limited theoretical discussion about the basic dimensions
underlying attitudes toward education.

The following comments by Miles are pertinent ob-
servations:.

A very wide variety of strategies for creating and
controlling educational change is being employed.

. .2. The dominant focus in most contemporary
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 re-
sistances to change are in educational systems, and
why particular strategies of change chosen by inno-
vators succeed or fail (Miles, 1964, p. 2).

In an attempt to determine the attitudes of re-
spondents-toward education Felty (1965), Friesen (1966),
and Mader (1967) utilized a scale developed by Kerlinger
in 1956. The effort to make comparisons between this pre-
sent study and Mader's (1967) will be facilitated by
following the theoretical model developed.by Kerlinger in
1956 and expanded as reported in his 1967 article.

According to Kerlinger (1956):

A basic dichotomy seems to exist in educational

attitudes corresponding generally to restrictive

and permissive, or traditional and progressive ways
of regarding education, and some individuals show-
the dichotomy more sharply than others depending

on their occupational roles, their knowledge of

and experiences with education, and the importance
of education to them (p. 312).

30

Kerlinger defines the restrictive-traditional factor
as that which emphasizes subject matter for its own sake.
The hierarchical nature of impersonal superior-inferior
relationships is considered important and there is an
emphasis on external discipline. Social beliefs are pre—
served through the maintenance of the status quo.

In contrast, the permissive-progressive factor em-
phasizes problem solving and de-emphasizes subject matter
per se. From this perspective, education is seen as growth
and the child's interest and needs are seen as basic to
education. Equality and warmth in interpersonal relation—
ships are valued. There is an orientation to internal rather-
than external discipline. Social beliefs tend to be liberal
and emphasize education as an instrument of change (Ker-
1inger, 1958, p. 112).

Kerlinger's theory can be summarized in the following
four propositions which indicate the relationship between
attitudes and educational values:

1. Individuals having the same or similar occu-
pational or professional roles will hold similar
attitudes toward a cognitive object which is
significantly related to the occupational or
professional role. Individuals having dis-
similar roles will hold dissimilar attitudes.

2. There exists a basic dichotomy in the edu-

cational values and attitudes of people,

31

corresponding generally to "restrictive" and
"Permissive," or "traditional" and "progressive"
modes of looking at education.

3.' Individuals will differ in degree or strength
of dichotomization, the degree or strength of
dichotomization being a function of occupational
role, extent of knowledge of the cognitive ob-
ject (education), the importance of the cog—
nitive object to the subjects, and their experi-
ence with it.

4. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of
education, but individuals will tend to attach
differential weights to different areas,
specifically to the areas of (a) teaching-
subject matter-curriculum,(b) interpersonal
relations, (0) normative, and (d) authority-

discipline (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 290).

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.
Considering the question of relationships between

attitude and action, Rosenberg states:

{/U
f.)

In the face of.. . . (a) limitation in present
knowledge, what is usually done is to follow a
theoretical rule of thumb to the effect that the
"stronger" the attitude, the more likely it will

be that the subject will take consistent action

toward the attitude object . . . the more ex-

treme (and thus, following Suchman, the more in-

tense) the attitude, the stronger must be the

action-opposing forces for the action to fail to
occur in the particular attitude-eliciting situ-

ation in which those forces are operative . . .

improvement in the validity of estimates of atti—

tude intensity will increase the likelihood of

successful prediction (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 336).

In summary, intensity has been established as an
important attitude component, increasing predictability.
It apparently varies both with related value intensity
(Rosenberg, 1960, p. 321) and with amount of contact
(Foa, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951).

In addition to the important function of-increasing
predictability, attitude intensity locates the true zero-
point of a scale in.which the area of content has been
found to be scalable (e.g., Guttman, 1947). Locating a
true zero-point appears to have the highly desirable
characteristic of elimination of question bias (Foa, 1950;
Suchman and Guttman, 1947; and Guttman, 1954b). The pre-
sent study as in the Mader (1967), research of Special
educator attitudes will utilize a simple approximation of
the intensity function by asking "How strongly do you feel
about each particular item?" The response categories
following such a question are "very strongly," "fairly

strongly," and "not so strongly." The specific procedure

33

for intensity measurement is outlined by Suchman (1950,

p. 219).

Personal Contact

The general relationship that the more frequent the
contact between persons or groups, the more favorable the
attitude with the converse also held to be true was sug-
gested-by Homans (1950, p. 112).

Allport (1958, pp. 250-268) devoted a chapter to re-
‘search on various kinds of intergroup contact. He-con-
cluded that "equal status contact" creates more favorable
attitudes when the contact is in pursuit of common goals
(p. 267). Casual contact is unpredictable in effects, but
may serve to reinforce adverse stereotypes (p. 252). Status
was also found to be significant. In studies of attitudes
toward Negroes, those having contact with high status-or
high occupational group Negroes held more favorable atti—
tudes than those having contact with lower status Negroes
(pp. 254, 261-262). Since the physically disabled can also
be viewed as a minority group (Tenny, 1953), and are per-
ceived as high or low in status (Semmel, 1966) Allport's
study has relevance to the present study.

Jacobson gg_§l. (1960, pp. 210-213) considered re-
search related to intergroup contact, particularly between
cultures. He suggested that equal status contacts (as

discussed by Allport, above) are more likely to develop

34

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 fre-
quency of social contact on liking or disliking are de-
pendent on two other variables: "cost of avoiding inter—
action, and availability of alternative rewards . . . if
the costs of avoiding interaction are low, and if there are
available alternative sources of reward, the more frequent
the interaction, the greater the mutual liking." From the
reference point of the actor these propositions seem re-
lated to perceived freedoms or constraints to interact with
another, and to his valuations and selection of this inter-
action over other activities perceived as rewarding.

The foregoing might be summarized as follows: frequent
contact with a person or group is likely to lead to more
favorable attitudes, if:

1. Frequency of contact with the physically dis-

abled is increased (Homans, 1950, p. 112),
2. The contact is between status equals in pursuit
of common goals (Allport, p. 267),

3. The contact is perceived as instrumental to the

realization of a desired goal value (Rosenberg,

1960, p. 521).

35

4. Contact is with members of a higher status
group or where the disability lacks visibility
(Allport, 1958, pp. 254, 261-262),
5. If the contact is among status equals and the
basis of status is unquestioned (Jacobson gg_§1.,
1960, pp. 210-213),
6. If the contact is volitional (as reinterpreted
from Zetterburg, 1963, p. 13),
7. If the contact is selected over other alter-
natives (as reinterpreted from Zetterburg, 1963,
p. 13).
Empirical Research on Attitudes
Toward the Physically
Disabled
There have been a number of studies considering atti-
tudes toward specific kinds of physical disability or im-
pairment in specific settings in the United States) These
studies have been reviewed in Barker gt_§1. (1953), Cruick-
shank (1955, 1963), Wright (1960) and in other general
reference works. Only those studies relevant to the present
discussion will be considered.
3“} Haring gt_§1, (1958) found that workshop attempts to
modify teacher attitudes (both verbal and behavioral) to-

L( r. w.
ward disabled children were more effective where teachers

.1 WM

maintained regular contact with these children. This sug-

gests a possible interaction between information and

36

contact in relation to attitude toward a subordinate group,

provided that information requires a change in beliefs.

From the reaction of those teachers who had few
opportunities for actual experiences with ex-
ceptional children, it appears that the threat of
having to modify behavior is more anxiety-pro-a
ducing 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 rejection

and the development of organized resistance.. When
specific experiences are provided, the actual pro-
blems that arise can be dealt with directly (p.
131 a

': t.
,‘ \\ a.

\%£_One of the most comprehensive analysis of the atti-
tudes of educators toward exceptional children was con-
ducted by Haring, Stern, and Cruickshank (1958). They
attempted to measure the amount of existing information
concerning disability held by the respondents as well as
their attitudes toward various disabilities. As a result
of their attempt to change information levels and modify
attitudes, they reported significant changes in the level
of information and attitudes toward disability. They in-
dicated that the teachers were able to modify their atti-
tudes toward some kinds of handicapping conditions more
easily than toward others. Specifically of interest to
the present study is their observation that:

The significant difference between the areas of
deviation were a function of the teachers initial
acceptance in the area, and the number of experi-

ences with exceptional children in the area
(Haring et a1., 1958, p. 117). )

37

W.

J“;

.7lstudies by several authors (Bodt, 1957; Dickstein
and Dripps, 1958; Force, 1956; Haring gt_al., 1958;
Kvaraceus, 1956; and Murphy, 1960) consider preferences
for different disability groupings in various specific
situations. Bodt, Dickstein and Dripps, Kraraceus and
Murphy, all studied preference for teaching particular
groups over others by means of group rankings. In general,
the gifted were most preferred while mentally handicapped
and maladjusted children were least preferred. Physically
disabled children were in between. Bodt found that in
general physically disabled children were personally ac-
cepted as playmates for respondent's children, whereas
mentally retarded and disturbed children were not. Dick-
stein and Dripps, and Murphy, found that where people.have
an educational speciality (e.g., such as speech therapy),
children with a related disorder (e.g., with speech patho-
logy) are most preferred as a student group. In general,
there was a tendency to prefer to work with those best
known. Respondents included teachers, principals, and
speech therapists in addition to studentsi)

Findings in the studies by Haring 22.2i- (1958, p.
38) have important implications for the present study.
The respondents were considering acceptability of children
for regular school programs, so that mechanical consider-
ations of class management were undoubtedly influential,

as well as personal reactions. Only those children with

38

mild hearing disorders and with leg crippling--if the latter
were ambulatory by crutch or wheelchair--were considered
educationally acceptable (pp. 40-41), although others were
functionally capable of such placement.

fi,r<flgesearchers who have investigated the attitudes of
normal members of society toward disability have reported
a general lack of acceptance of this minority group. Bald-
win (1958% Johnson (1961), Jordan (1959), and Thurstone.
(1959, 1960) have reported similar findings in this regard.

Force (1956) attempted to determine the social posi-
tion of physically handicapped children among normal peers.
He found that the handicapped children are not as well ac-
cepted as normal children at the elementary school level.

Morerrecently Warren, Turner, and Brady (1964), and
Warren and Turner (1966), have reported rank order acceptance
and/or most visably handicapped are least socially acceptable.
Generally, the nonhandicapped individual enjoys the greatest,
social acceptability?) Similar results were indicated by
Jones, Gottfried, and Owens (1966) and Goodman, Dorabush,
and Hastorf (1963).

In‘a study of the connotative reactions of college
students to disability labels, Semmel and Dickinson (1966)
noted that special education majors indicated greater ac-
ceptance of the handicapped when compared with elementary
education majors. They also reported a significant and

almost linear trend between amount of contact with the

38

mild hearing disorders.and with leg crippling--if the latter
were ambulatory by crutch or wheelchair-~were considered
educationally acceptable (pp. 40-41), although others were
functionally capable of such placement.

j,c<dgesearchers who have investigated the attitudes of
normal members of society toward disability have reported
a general lack of acceptance of this minority group. Bald—
win (1958L Johnson (1961), Jordan (1959), and Thurstone.
(1959, 1960) have reported similar findings in this regard.

Force (1956) attempted to determine the social posi-
tion of physically handicapped children among normal peers.
He found that the handicapped children are not as well ac-
cepted as normal children at the elementary school level.

More~reoently Warren, Turner, and Brady (1964), and
Warren and Turner (1966), have reported-rank order acceptance
and/or most visably handicapped are least socially acceptable.
Generally, the nonhandicapped individual enjoys the greatest
social acceptability?) Similar results were indicated by
Jones, Gottfried, and Owens (1966) and Goodman, Dorabush,
and Hastorf (1963).

In~a study of the connotative reactions of college
students to disability labels, Semmel and Dickinson (1966)
noted that special education majors indicated greater ac-
ceptance of the handicapped when compared with elementary
education majors. They also reported a significant and

almost linear trend between amount of-contact with the

handicapped and mean scores on the Connotative Reaction
Inventory.

Roeher (1959) found that both social contact and
increased factual information lead to increased acceptance
and tolerance of disabled persons.

Bradt (1957) made a comparative study of the atti-
tudes of education majors and undergraduates in other
fields of study toward the handicapped and reached the
following conclusions:

1. Education students were no more willing to teach

the handicapped than were noneducation majors.

2. Education majors reflected less acceptance of

the crippled child than non-education majors.

3. Non-education students were openly hostile

toward mentally handicapped.and socially-
rs emotionally maladjusted children.

if Agfiinvestigation by Murphy (1960) into the attitudes
of various groups of educators toward the handicapped has

a relationship to the present study. He suggested that a
positive trend correlation exists between how much a teacher.
"thinks" he knows about a specific area of disability and,
his attitudes toward a specific disability?)

It was observed by Fenderson (1964) that while teach—
ers of the handicapped must be.skilled in applying learning
techniques, they must also display a genuine interest in

the child. He emphasized that teachers' attitudes toward

40

the handicapped can be evaluated through utilization of
the principle that handicapped persons have a right to
dignity, they have needs and feelings, and they can and
do grow up.

Jones and Gottfried (1966) determined that special
education teachers as a group have high prestige when
judged by other teachers. It was noted that teachers of
the educable retarded rated themselves lower-than the
regular classroom teachers rated-them. It was speculated
by the authors why more teachers do not enter special
education:

A perceived lack of congruence between respondent,

personal characteristics, and the traits needed

for special education teaching, the relationship

of rated occupational prestige to other variables,

and the competition from other areas (p. 468).

Hanks and Hanks (1948) attempted a systematic analysis
in an attempt to determine relationships between structural
and functional characteristics of several non-occidental
societies. They concluded that the physically disabled
are better protected and have more participation in societies
where:

(a) the level of productivity is higher_in pro-

portion to the population and its distribution more

nearly equal, (b) competitive factors in individual
or group achievement are minimized, (c) the criteria
of achievement are less formally absolute as in
hierarchial social structures and more weighed with

"concern for individual capacity, as in democratic
social structures (pp. 19-20).

41

According to Tenny (1953) there are similarities

between the handicapped and other minority groups in our

society.

1.

These similarities can be summarized:

Social distance exists and rejection takes
place. The individual usually withdraws or
becomes aggressive.

Minority groups and the handicapped usually
become stereotyped in the eyes of the public
through movies, comic strips, and jokes. This,
in part, explains the negative attitude of the
general public toward these two groups.

As society rejects these stereotyped groups
they become segregated.

Job opportunities for these groups are limited

resulting in low economic and social status.

In a critique of Tenny's position Berreman (1954)

pointed out that there are important differences as well

as similarities. Among these are:

l.

The child from a minority group identifies with
the group and gains strength from it. This would
not be the case with the physically handicapped
child.

The handicapped are usually treated with kind-
ness and understanding as children and then
experience rejection in employment as adults by

the same society which indulged them as children.

42

Yuker (1965) stated that people who are prejudiced
against the disabled also tend to be prejudiced against
ethnic groups) Previous research by Holtzmen, Kelly, and
Ferson (1958) utilized a Likert-type scale to determine
attitudes toward the Negro in the south. They determined
that attitudes toward this minority group were signifi-
cantly related to the geographic region from which the~
respondent came, father's occupation, major field of study
in college, and religious preference. In addition, it was
noted that there was a tendency for those with favorable
attitudes toward the church to be less tolerant toward the
Negro.

A study by Whiteman and Luckoff (1962) was concerned,
among other things, with attitude structure and personal
value orientations. Because of the theoretical foundation
of the research, it has more than the usual degree of
generality and relevance to other attitudinal studies, in-
cluding those related specifically to blindness, more
generally to physical disability, and to the field of
attitude research in general.

C\. Felty' 8 study (1965) of attitudes toward physical
disability in Costa Rica served as the pilot study for a
number of cross-cultural investigations currently underway
at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr.
John E. Jordan. The present study and Mader's (1967) are

included in that number. The occupational interest groups

43

are varied, but the hypothesis of these studies are essen-
tially the same and allow for comparisons of data.

Felty found that when intensity scores were plotted
against content scores, the predicted-U or J shaped curves
were obtained. He noted, that not enough content total
score categories were obtained around the "bending points"
of the curve to define with precision where the scales
should be divided into favorable and unfavorable sections.

The hypothesis that "leadership" value would be
negatively related to "Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons"
scores was considered confirmed. A significant negative
correlation was obtained. It was also predicted that the
rehabilitation and special education group would have more
positive "Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons" scores than
the other occupational groups. This proved to be the case
as far as the executive group and the labor group were con—
cerned. The education group, however, scored higher on this
scale than did the rehabilitation and special education group.

Felty hypothesized that persons who score high in need
for power and control over others will tend to score low in
acceptance of disabled persons. He reported that his study
appeared to confirm the negative relationship between com-
parative values and acceptance of the disabled, however, ,/~*~
the positive relationship between asset values and acceptance

of the disabled did not seem to be supported.

4 4

On 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 place more emphasis on basic subject
matter and on discipline than did their female counter-
parts. Conversely, females were more inclined to accept
progressive, child-centered ideas. He_cautioned that
since the educator group was largely female that although
they scored high in progressivism and low in traditional-
ism there is question as to whether this is primarily an
occupational characteristic or a genuine sex difference.

The study of major interest and relevance to the
present research was conducted by Mader (1967) with a pri—
mary focus of evaluating the attitudes of sub-groups of
special educators toward the handicapped and toward edu-
cation. The secondary purpose stated by Mader was that the
collection of data on special educators would be done in a
manner that it could be incorporated in a comparative study-
such as was undertaken in this current study.

Results of Mader's (1967) study indicate that when
the attitudes of sub-groups of special educators toward
the handicapped were compared by sex and by groups no
significant differences were obtained. This was also true
of the comparison of the Benevolence and Recognition
values held by the various sub-groups when scores repre-

senting each of these values were compared with scores

45

of other groups reported by Gordon (1960). It was con-
cluded that special educators are more benevolent and
hold leadership values (a comparative orientation) in
less esteem than do non-special educators. The findings
also indicated that when the total special education
group was compared by sex the females held higher Benevo-
lence values than the males.

The comparison of Mader and Gordon is in agreement
with Jordan (1963) who has suggested that in Latin America,
those persons actively engaged in the areas of rehabili-
tation and special education differ in values from the
majority. In discussing these differences, he_has drawn
on the work of Almond and Coleman (1960) in the character-
ization of various types of groups and associations in
society, and also on the work of Rogers (1962) and Katz
et_§l. (1963) in the characteristics and process of inno-
vation diffusion. Both Rogers, and Almond and Coleman,
have drawn on the sociological typologies. No attempt will
be made here to summarize this vast literature, or the de-
tailed analysis underlying the conclusuions.* However, Jor-
dan has hypothesized that rehabilitation and special edu-
cation groups in Latin America are characterized by modern
social values of "democracy, constitutionalism, humanism,
the scientific process and universal suffrage" (p. 17) and,
more generally, by "specificity, universalism, achievement,

and affective neutrality" (1963).

46

Toward Education

 

Kerlinger has noted that the problem of the con-
sistency and inconsistency of an individual's attitude is
still largely unsolved (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296).

As a result of the implications of these obser—
vations, Kerlinger designed a study which examined the
educational attitudes of professors and laymen. The sam-
ple consisted of 25 subjects chosen on the basis of occu-
pational roles as well as known attitudes toward edu-
cation.

He developed the following categories for the study:

ATTITUDES:

 

1. Restrictive-traditional
(dependence-heteronomy)

2. Permissive-progressive
(independence-autonomy)

AREAS:

 

a. Teaching-Subject Matter Curriculum
b. Interpersonal Relations

k. Normative-Social (conventionalism-nonconvention-
alism)

m. Authority-Discipline

An example of l (a) would be: The true view of edu-
cation is so arranging learning that the child gradually
guilds 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

47

themselves are not so important as learning to solve pro-
blems. An illustration of 1 (m) might be: One of the
big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline
is often sacrificed to the interest of the children. An
example of 2 (m) might be: True discipline springs from
interests, motivation, and involvement in live problems.

Kerlinger warns that the restrictive and permissive
dimensions are rarely Opposites nor merely positive and
negative assertions of the same thing. Each category is
presumably independent (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296).

The results of the Kerlinger (1956) study indicated
that occupational roles and role expectations are potent
independent variables influencing attitudes and visa versa.
Individuals having similar roles might be expected to have
similar attitudes and.a similar attitude structure. Evi-
dence by Kerlinger (1967) further supports these con-
tentions.

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.

Smith further hypothesized a relationship between
attitudes toward education and general social attitudes.
Thus individuals holding progressive educational attitudes
would tend to be liberal in their social attitudes and

48

visa versa. Individuals conservative in their social
attitudes would be expected to be traditional in their
educational attitudes.

In two Q-sorts consisting of a total of 140 attitude
statements relating to all aspects of education, she
found that progressive and traditional factors of the Q-
sort did indeed remain invariant. Other factors which
emerged from one of the sorts were labeled as "moral
values" and "interpersonal relations."

0n the third Q-sort, she found that liberalism and
conservatism did emerge as basic dimensions of social atti—
tudes and were highly related to educational attitudes in
the direction of the hypothesis. Two other factors which
emerged from the third Q-sort were labeled as "Internation-
alism" and "Religious Tenents" (Smith, 1963).

The Intellectual-Pragmatism Scale (I-P) was developed
by Block and Yuker (1965) to measure intellectual attitudes.
Although they did not define intellectualism, it can be
contextually inferred that it is an intellectual orien-
tation resulting from academic exposure. It is pointed out
that intellectualism was found to be associated with a pro—
gressive attitude toward education as measured by the Ker-
linger Education Scale. Contrary to expectations, however,
I-P scores were not related to Kerlinger's Traditionalism

Scale.

49

The Intellectualism scores were also positively
correlated with scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled
Persons Scale (developed by Yuker g£_§1., 1960). The
students who changed most in their attitudes toward dis-
abled persons, as measured by the Attitudes Toward Dis-
abled Persons Scale, were the ones who scored highest on
the intellectualism scale.

It was concluded by Block and Yuker (1965) that edu-
cation (at least some types of education) brings about atti-
tude changes in students that are related to a greater
intellectual orientation.

Kramer (1963) 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. The results indicate that "open-minded"
teachers as a group were more consistent and held permis-
sive-progressive attitudes. He also found that the more
"open-minded" a teacher's belief system was, the greater
the likelihood for internal consistency of an educational
attitude structure in a progressive direction.

While the "close-minded" teachers were less consistent
than the "open-minded" teachers, they were.more consistent
than those who had no clear cut belief system.

Kerlinger's Education Scale II was used to study the
relationship between basic education attitudes and partici-

pation in professional teacher activities by Taylor (1963).

50

She was also interested in the relationship of basic edu-
cational attitudes to educational background of teachers.
She found that teachers with border-line traditional atti-
tudes participated less in activities related to pupils
than did teachers in other categories (such as traditional,
progressive border-line, progressive). She also found that
29 per cent of the teachers had attitude scores that almost
certainly indicated either traditionalism or progressivism.

Lawrence (1963) also used Kerlinger's Education Scale
11 to measure both progressive education attitudes and
attitudinal consistency. It was reported that this scale
did not seem to differentiate progressive and traditional
attitudes toward education.

Hand (1964) studied teacher characteristics associ-.
ated with changed attitudes and performance in the teaching
of reading. She found that a tendency toward more progres-
sive beliefs was a factor associated with change in teach-
er's attitudes.

Teaching methods, as well as content, were found
important in trying to change attitudes of perspective
teachers by Purcell (1964).

Anderson (1964) studied the changes in attitudes of
prospective teachers toward education and teaching in
secondary schools and found that student teachers, for the
most part, did not change attitudes toward education and

teaching. She concluded that the extent and direction of

51

change seems to depend on the degree to which the students
perceive existing school and community objectives, poli-
cies, and relationships.

Successful educational innovation and programing,
in a large measure, depends upon the degree of acceptance
and cooperation of the educational staff. It was con-
cluded by Classon (1963) in her study of elementary
teachers' attitudes that a careful study of attitudes is
a necessity before attempting to improve or develop any

educational~program.
The Measurement of Attitudes

General Considerations

I As in the study by Mader (1967) attitude has been
defined as'a "delimited totality of behavior with respect
to something" (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Responses on an
attitude scale are one form of delimited behavior, but the
attitude universe may consist of many forms of behavior
which are more or less intercorrelated and which form
separate subuniverses. An adequate attitude abstraction
from this universe should include sampling from each of the
possible sub—universes, a task of doubtful empirical
possibility. A statement of the conceptual problem, how-
ever, points up limitations in the range of inferences one
may make from a limited sampling of behavior. There will

probably be a relationship between the statements one makes

52

about a person with a disability, and how one behaves
overtly toward that person, but the relationship cannot
be assumed without empirical support.

Green (1954, pp. 335-336) made three important points
about attitudes, their underlying characteristics, and
their relationship to other variables. First, there must
be a consistency of responses in respect to some social
object. Second, the attitude itself is an abstraction
from a set of consistent, or covarying responses. "In
each measurement method, covariation among responses is
related to the variation of an underlying variable. The
latent attitude is defined by the correlations among re-
sponses" (p. 336). Responses themselves are not attitudes;
rather, the attitude is defined 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) be-
cause it is always in terms of a referent class of social
objects. The approach to attitude assessment known as
scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3) is consistent
'with the above considerations, and it is this approach
which has been used inthe pilot study with respect to
'the attitude variables employed and will be utilized in

this present study.

53

Scale Analysis

The following brief summary of scale analysis is not
intended to be exhaustive, but merely to present a ration-
ale and an outline of the approach used in this study. A
basic reference to this material is the writing of Guttman
(1950).- Comprehensive discussions of the technique in
respect to other scaling methods are to be found in Edwards
(1957), Green (1954), and Goods and Hatt (1952). Riley
g§_gl. (1954) presents certain information in_respect to
technique not available elsewhere, and Riley (1963) and
Waisanen (1960) presented simplified techniques for intro-
ductory work with the method.

Scale analysis provides a method for determining
whether.a set of-items can be ordered along a single dimen-
sion. Ifga particular attitude universe is really one-
dimensional, any sampling of items from it should also be
one-dimensional, and should provide an ordering of respon.
dents essentially the same as that provided by any other
sampling of items from the universe. If the predicted
ordering does not occur, the universe is judged to be
multi-dimensional-and consequently not scalable. It is
possible, of course, that items have been included which
do not refer to the universe of content. These non-scale_
items might be excluded; however, item exclusion must be
exercised with caution (Green, 1954, p. 357). If items do

suggest an underlying single dimension, it is meaningful to

54

describe a respondent.with a higher total score as possess-
ing more of the characteristic being measured than someone
with a lower total score. Most important, if scale pro-
perties are obtained, this provides evidence for the
existence of a defined body of opinion in the respondent
group in respect to the particular area of measurement in-
volved. The fact that item scales are obtained in each of
two or more countries being compared is evidence for concept
equivalence, regardless of variation in the content of the
particular items in the scales from one nationality group
to another.

In Guttman scaling, the focus is on the ranking of
respondents rather than on the ranking of items. "We shall
call a set of items of common content a scale if a person
with a higher rank than another person is just as high or
higher on every item than the other person" (Guttman, 1950,
p. 62). The individual item responses of every respondent
should be reproducible (with about 10 per cent error allow-
able) from a knowledge of his total score rank. The amount
of error which is allowable in reproducing item scores from
a knowledge_of respondent total score rank has been some-
what arbitrarily established at 10 per cent, although Gutt-
man has shown that if the errors are random in a given
[sample of 100 persons and 5 dichotomous items, the pOpu—
lation reproducibility should not vary more than 4 or 5
per cent from the reproducibility coefficient of the sample
(1950, p. 77).

55

1 which

Guttman has also described the quasi-scale,
may occur when the reproducibility of a scale is lower
than the required 90 percent, but when the errors occur
in a random pattern. Stouffer (1950, p. 5) notes that

. . . the correlation of the quasi-scale with an

outside criterion is the same as the multiple cor-

relation between responses to the individual items
formin that scale and the outside criterion

[which justifies the use of sets of items from

an area not scalable in the strictest sense.

It should be pointed out that the criterion of 90 per cent
reproducibility is no more an absolute standard than is the
selection of an alpha of .05 for a test of significance.
For some purposes a lower limit may be satisfactory, for
others a higher limit may be a-necessity. The important
criteria in respect to scale error would seem to be the
random nature of occurrence of the errors.

The error pattern of the quasi-scale question is

recognizable from the manner in which the fairly

large number of errors that occur gradually de-
crease in number as one moves further and further

away from the cutting point.2 These errors . . .

do not group together like non-scale errors

(Suchman, 1950, pp. 160-161).

This appears to be the error pattern obtained on the scales

used in the present study.

 

r w— —r

1The analysis of scales employed in the present
study would appear to place them in the category of
quasi-scales.

2The "cutting point" refers to the point at which
the "favorable" (or, e.g., "yes") responses to an item,
can be divided with the least amount of error from the
"unfavorable" (or, e.g., "no") responses to an item, when
the respondents have been ordered on the basis of total
score for all items in the scale.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

The purpose of this study was to attempt a comparative
analysis of the attitudes of special educators and regular
classroom teachers toward the physically handicapped as well
as toward education in general. A secondary obJective was
the employment of a set of instruments developed for the
purpose of assessing cross-cultural attitudes in the broad

areas of education and rehabilitation.1

Felty (1965) first
utilized the design, instruments, and methodology in a pilot
study conducted in San Jose, Costa Rica. Friesen (1966) and
Kreider (1967) further refined the design in studies of the
nature and determinants of attitudes toward education and the
physically handicapped in South America and EurOpe respec-
tively.

As has been previously indicated, no research has been
found which attempted to determine and compare the attitudes
of special educators and regular classroom teachers. For
the purpose of this study the following groups of special
educators as set forth by Mader (1967): (a) teachers of

the educably retarded, (b) teachers of the trainable re-

tarded, (c) visiting teachers (school social workers),

 

WW W - h

18cc Footnote 1, Chapter I, p. 7).
56

57

(d) diagnosticians, (e) teachers of the visually handi-
capped, (f) teachers of the auditorily handicapped, and
(8) speech correctionists will be compared to elementary
. and secondary regular classroom teachers in respect to
attitudes toward the physically handicapped and toward

education in general.
Research Population

Generalfiponsiderations

A comprehensive description of the sub-groups of
special educators is given in the study by Mader (1967).
All educators included in his sample held provisional or
permanent certification or the equivalent as teachers with
the Michigan Department of Education. In addition, to
this qualification each was approved in his particular area
of special education.

Mader administered the questionnaires at state and
county workshops held for special educators in several
locations throughout Michigan. "It is reasonable to assume
that such a procedure resulted in a representative sample
of special educators from among Michigan school districts
since all educators (three-hundred-forty eight) attending the
workshops participated in the study" (Mader, 1967).

In order to make a comparison of attitudes of special
education personnel and regular classroom teachers there

were several general considerations involved. In the

58

research population for this present study all of the ele-
mentary and secondary teachers held provisional or per-
manent certification or its equivalent. Secondly, as
nearly as possible a random sample of teachers was taken
from the geographic areas of Michigan represented in the
study by Mader (1967). Both studies will have taken a
population sample from Michigan Public Schools. For this
present study a sample of two hundred regular classroom
teachers were randomly selected from each of the follow—
ing: (a) Elementary Classroom Teachers of grades K-6
and, (b) Secondary Classroom Teachers of grades 7-12.

The elementary classroom teacher was a male or fe-
male respondent who was teaching a class of children at
the kindergarten level or any grade or combination of grades
through the sixth grade. The secondary classroom teacher
wasps male or female respondent who was teaching a class or
combination of classes from the seventh grade through and
including the twelfth grade.'

The elementary classroom teacher's sample consisted
of 161 respondents. The sample of secondary classroom
teachers was composed of 149 respondents. The total of
310 respondents represents a 78 per cent return of the

questionnaire.

Selection of Variables
The selection of variables for this study are those

suspected to have some particular relationship to the

59

criterion variables of attitudes toward education as a
social institution, and attitudes toward the physically
handicapped. The selection of variables was dictated from
the theoretical considerations reviewed in Chapter II.
Demographic variables were included because of well-
established sociological methods in the research of group
interaction. Other variables were included, however, which
were intended to provide information in respect to the
characteristics of the two groups of respondents: (a)
education personnel, and (b) those who work with the handi—
capped. These variables are those of: (a) mobility, (b)
personalism, (c) institutional satisfaction, (d) religiosity,
and (a) 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 gt_al., 1960).
Adequate test—retest reliability scores were reported, and
various construct validity measures which were all col-
lected from disabled employees of Abilities, Inc. of New~
York, a light manufacturing company which employs disabled
workers. Among these employees the test was found to be
negatively related to age and anxiety, and positively re—

lated to verbal intelligence and Job satisfaction.

60

Although the validating group has questionable generality
and the rationale for item selection is not clear, the
test represents an attempt to fill a gap in the field and
deserves further study. It seems to be the only instru-
ment available to measure attitudes toward disability.

Modifications were made in the provisions for re-
spondent scoring. The Likert-type format was retained, but
the response categories for each item were reduced from
seven to four. A further modification was that instead of
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 (Appendix A-5). It was felt that these modifications
would simplify the task for the respondent. Since it was
intended to submit the items to scale analysis rather than
follow the suggested scoring system, there was no need to
retain the same numerical scores.

Fifteen of the 20 attitude items are statements of
differences between disabled persons and those not disabled,
and agreement with those statements is interpreted as re-
flecting an unfavorable attitude.

Modifications similar to those described above were
made on the Attitudes Toward Education Scale developed by
Kerlinger (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959).
The scales were included for two reasons: first, because

there is a rationale for hypothesizing a relationship

61

between progressive attitudes toward education and posi-
tive attitudes toward physical disability; and second, be-
cause they are short and simple to administer. The scales
represent a factor analysis of a set of-HO items given to
598 subjects of varying backgrounds, but all apparently of
above average education. The scales have been found to
hold up under cross-validation; however, there is no indi-
cation that persons of lower educational attainment have
been adequately represented in the studies. A surface
examination of the items (Appendix A-5) suggests that some
of them may be somewhat overly complex and difficult for
many people. The complete instrument consists of 20 items,
of which 10 are "progressive," and 10 "traditional." As
employed in this study, the progressive and traditional

items were analyzed independently as two separate scales..

The Intensity Scales

A simple approximation of the intensity function has
been successfully attained by asking a question about
intensity after each content question. One form used
for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly
do you feel about this?; with answer categories of.
"Very strongly," "Fairly strongly," and "Not so

strongly." Repeating such a question after such con-
tent question yields a series of intensity answers.
,Using the same procedure as . . . for content answer,

these are scores and each respondent is given an in-
tensity score. The intensity scores are then cross
tabulated with the content scores (Suchman, 1950,

p. 219).

This procedure was the one adopted to measure intensity

for both the attitude items relating to handicapped persons

62

and to education. Four response categories were used in-

stead of the three suggested by Suchman.

InterpersonalfiValues

In selecting the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal
Values (Gordon, 1960), two factors were considered: first,
an instrument was needed which would yield scores on items
that seemed logically related to the values under test in
the hypotheses, those of "asset" orientation to others, and
"comparative" orientation to Others. Of the six sub-scales
in the instrument, the one for Benevolence is described as
follows: "Doing things for other people, sharing with
others, helping the unfortunate, being generous" (Gordon,
1960. p. 3). Among studies presented in a subsequent re-
search brief, Benevolence was found to correlate .H9 with
the Nurturance score on the Edwards Personal Preference
Schedule (EPPS) and negatively with Achievement (-.2h) and
Aggression (-.28) (Gordon, 1963, p. 22). It was decided on
the basis of the description, the item content, and the
inter-correlations with the EPPS that the Gordon Benevolence
Value would be an adequate operationalization of the "asset
value.”

The second value to be operationalized was that of
a "comparative" orientation toward others. The Gordon
manual offers the following definition for Recognition
Value: "Being looked up to and admired, being considered

important, attracting favorable notice, achieving

63

recognition" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). The following defi—
nition was offered for Conformity Value: "Doing what is
socially correct, following regulations closely, doing
what is accepted and proper, 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 rankings
of others on some kind of absolute scale, either of social
acceptability (Conformity), achievement (Recognition), or
power (Leadership). On the basis of surface consideration
of such content the Recognition and Leadership items were
judged to be most representative of Comparative Values.
Personal Contact
er a es

Two types of variables related to personal contact
were represented by 16 items in the questionnaires. Six;
items were related to educational contact, eight items were
related to contacts with physically disabled persons, one
item to contact with mentally retarded, and one item dealt
with contact with emotionally disturbed persons. Each item:
generated a score. Single-item scores are unstable, and
no reliability data can be offered. There is some evidence
of the predictive validity of some of the items, in respect
to expectancies that known groups should respond in certain

ways. For example, it was expected that persons working in

64

special education would report a higher frequency of con-
tact with disabled persons than 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)l requested
respondents to indicate: (a) how much they had worked in
schools or educational settings, (b) what per cent of in-
come was derived from such work, (c) how they felt about
such work, and (d) what other work opportunities they could
have alternatively chosen.

Contact with Physically Disabled.—-These items (PQ:
HP) requested the respondents to indicate: (a) the kind of
physical disability with which they had had the most contact,
or knew the most about, (b) the type of relationship they
had had with physically disabled persons--family, friends,
working relationships, etc., (c) the approximate number of
encounters they had had with physically disabled persons.
Other questions attempted to explore alternative oppor-
tunities, enjoyment of contact with handicapped persons,
ease of avoidance of such contact, gain from contact, and

per cent of income from working with the handicapped.

 

1Throughout the dissertation PQ will refer to Per-
sonal Questionnaire; PQ—HP will refer to Personal Question-
naire-Handicapped Persons.

65

Preferences for Personal
Relationships

This set of three items (PQ 22-2H) was devised to
help identify respondents, or groups of respondents, along
a traditional-modern dimension. The predominance of af-
fective relationships as Opposed to affectively neutral
relationships is supposedly one of the distinguishing'
characteristics of the "Gemeinshaft," or traditional,
orientation (e.g., Loomis, 1960, p. 6lff). Question 22
asked the respondent to indicate the approximate per cent
of personal interactions on the job which were with persons
who were close personal friends. Question 23 asked how
important it was to work with persons who were close
friends. Question 2“ was intended to measure diffuseness
or specificity of personal interactions under the hy-
pothesis that the traditionally oriented person is more
likely to have personal interactions which are diffused
between job and family, or other affective non-job inter—
actions. "Members of the Gemeinshaft like system are likely
to know each other well, their relationships are function-
ally diffuse in that most of the facets of human personality
are revealed in the prolonged and intimate associations com-
mon to such systems" (Loomis, 1960, p. 72). The special
educators, then, being committed to "asset" values (by
hypothesis), being more concerned with intrinsic valuation
of the person rather than valuing him for his absolute

achievements, should also express a greater need for

66

personal interactions generally, and a greater diffuseness
of interpersonal relationships. The assumption, then, is
that a comparison between special educators and regular
teachers will indicate a significant difference in pre-
ference for interpersonal relationships. Mader (1967)
assumed no differences among sub-groups of special edu—
cators with regard to preferences for personal relation—

ships and it was not disconfirmed.

Institutional Satisfaction

This was a set of nine questions (PQ 33 1-8) adapted
from Homan (1955, p- “00). The institutions selected
(schools, business, labor, government, health services,
churches) were listed and an opportunity offered to indi-
cate whether they were judged excellent, good, fair, or
poor in respect to how well they do their particular job in
the community. Friesen (1966) postulated that people work-
ing in special education and rehabilitation would be less
satisfied with institutions generally than other groups,
but it was not confirmed. Also, persons with high edu-
cation in relation to income might be expected to be less
satisfied than others, this was not confirmed. Again, no
reliability estimates are offered, and validity will be a

function of concurrent correlation coefficients.

Changg,0rientation
This set of six questions (PQ ui-uu and fl6-u7) were

adapted from Programma Interamericano de Informacion Popular

67

(PIIP) in Costa Rica. The respondents were asked to react
to a number of statements which purported to reflect atti-
tudes 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
agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, and strongly dis-
agree. Friesen (1966) postulated that people working in
special education would have responses which suggested a
greater flexibility and openness toward change than other
interest groups. This favorableness toward change could,
challenge many existing cultural norms, but the hypotheses
was not confirmed. Mader (1967) hypothesized no differences
among the sub-groups of special educators and it was not
disconfirmed with regard to change orientation. It was
postulated in the present study that differences do exist
between special educators and regular teachers with regard

to change orientation.

Demographic Variables

 

Respondents were asked in the PQ to indicate their
placement on several variables often found to be of signifi-
cance in sociological analysis: these were education (28-
30), occupation (39), rental (32), age (9), sex (face
sheet), marital status (13), number of children (in),

number of siblings (17, 18), home ownership (31), mobility

68

(10, ll, 12), and rural-urban youth (10). In the disser-
tation analysis, not all of these variables will be used
because of time and space limitations, but each is impor-
tant to the comprehensive cross—cultural study referred to

earlier.

Religiosity
Three questions (PQ 20, 21, and 38) were oriented

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. "Religi-
osity" also related to the traditional-modern dimension.
It was postulated that a difference would exist among the
special education personnel and the regular classroom

teachers with reference to religiosity.

Collection of Data

There were fifteen counties selected for this study
from northern, central and southern Michigan which were the
same or representative of the geographic areas used by
Mader (1967) in his study of special educators from Michi-
gan. Although the counties were not listed in his study,
he supplied a list for this present study (see
Figure l).

The techniques of obtaining a representative sample

of regular teachers from Michigan public schools was that

69

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Q
n) .m..'-v-n-1_ .
’ "o {1: 39'1" I i ‘
.’ fl” G ‘ ' u
9‘ R * q,” ,/ unm m sess- KO." 0
‘ V m on. G G I
0. Jpn—-
nun-nu Incas slum-u w est-n m
‘ , M I c c
§ __'-L__ _ l '_ ._L. .c
9 use- i “a Tot-nu tu- sun- L “I“ t
M - M | M M I" “‘"
‘ J: i '1 m c M
can: I -_.j «can In» ‘ II!“- “M J _.___ __ .__.
‘ . G” | I s ‘ “
”what“? 1 M i
w ‘ r" '
‘ _L_.__'..A\0"'
~ ‘ '__ run-sat! \‘fil" ./
‘ CM CM .G .J~—‘ ‘w‘
MICHIGAN STUDY ""' “3‘; 1"“? I v.
.. . __..l_.
Counties represented i nrfzgfr'...
in sampling-- ‘ I M ‘ G CANADA
' __i____,.._J.-w
6- Green ”LI-“l am | ”\) r
”- “ader ‘ | / \a;u nu
_l.—-—---1-‘ -\
GM- Green a Nader m ."' o,,,o ’£“‘
3 l
L l

 

 

Figure l.--The geographical representation of the Michigan Counties
from which the sample of special educators and regular teachers

were taken.

70

of stratified random sampling (Edwards, 1965; Hays, 1965, pp.
6u-67). A description of the random sampling should be of
assistance to future replication of this study.

In all 15 counties the Intermediate School District
Superintendent of Schools was contacted and a printed list
or school directory with names and addresses of all teach—
ers for that district was obtained. It was necessary to
work with the local school superintendents and principals
as well as MEA negotiating committees to obtain permission
to use teachers in the sample. There was, in most situ-
ations, excellent cooperation from both administrators and
teachers. An attempt was made to schedule the presentation
and distribution of questionnaires during the school dis-
tricts' county-wide teacher's institute day, where all the
teachers of a county or counties come together. This pro—
cedure was utilized in all but two counties (Wayne and
Genesee Counties where a randomization of the selection of
schools was necessary because no county institute meeting
was set up).

A random sample of elementary and secondary classroom
teachers was taken from the school directories by use of
the random number tables contained in R. A. Fisher and
F. Yates, Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural.
and Medical Research, (pp. 385-387). These teachers were
sent a personal invitation, co-signed by the local superin-

tendent of schools, to participate in this study of attitudes

71

toward the physically handicapped. An effort was made to
set a convenient time that would not interfere with other
activities of the institute on that day.

The following procedures and instructions were care-
fully followed in each of the counties in Michigan: (a) a
statement of appreciation for the c00peration of the group,
(b) a general statement of the reason for the investi-
gation, (c) a statement of the format of the administration,
(d) an oral explanation of the various instruments, (e) a
statement that there would be complete anonimity of those
who participated, and (f) that a follow-up card would be
sent to the entire random sample.

The instruments-were administered in the following
order:

1. Definitions of Disability

2. Attitudes Toward Education

3. Survey of Interpersonal Values

u. Personal Questionnaire

5° Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons

6. Personal Questionnaire (Handicapped Persons)

In every case the teachers were given the six instru-
ments in a large envelope, stamped for mailing, and addressed
to the author. Approximately two weeks from the presen-
tation and distribution of the questionnaires, a card was
mailed to the selected teachers expressing appreciation for

their cooperation and encouringing their participation if

72

they had not already returned their questionnaire. In some
areas a second follow-up mailing was necessary.

By means of the methods described a 78 per cent return
of the questionnaires was achieved with a total random sam-
ple of 310 out of “00. From the 200 elementary teachers
sampled the return was 161, and from the secondary teachers
149. There were 10 questionnaires returned without being
appropriately completed and could not be utilized as part
of the sample and were not considered part of the 78 per

cent return.
Statistical Procedures

Descriptive

Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark, 196h)
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.

Scale and Intensity
Analysis‘

The general procedures are discussed by Suchman (1950,

 

Chps. u and 7). In working with Likert-type items, two
problems arise which call for special techniques. The first
is that of organizing the respondent-item matrix so that

items can be dichotomized with the aid of visual inspection

73

and counting. Once the items are dichotomized into 9, 1
categories the second problem, common to all Guttman-type
scale procedure, is that of re—ordering respondents in the
order of their new total scores, and then recording the
items for inspection of the resulting scale pattern.

Various techniques have been proposed such as the
use of specially constructed boards which employ shot to
indicate item responses (Suchman, 1950, Chp. u). A techni-
que employing no special equipment except a typewriter was
suggested by Waisanen (1960), which is appealing by virtue
of its simplicity. While the Waisanen technique was very
helpful, the "CUT" Computer program, developed by Hafterson
(196A) at Michigan State University, saved numerous hours
of work and avoided errors which have resulted from a longer
and more tedious method. The program determined each possi-
ble cutting point as well as the number of errors involved
in each cut. The dichotomized items were then scaled by
the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program in use with the
CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University (Lingoes,
1963; Hafterson, 1964). All scales, for both.content and
intensity, were submitted to the same procedure.

The procedure for combining the content and intensity
scales is described by Suchman (1950, Chp. 7).; The basic
procedure is to form a matrix of scores such that total
intensity scores are entered onthe vertical axis and total

content scores are entered on the horizontal axis.

7U

Respondents are tabulated in the resulting cells on the
basis of the two total scores received for each scale; one
in content, one in intensity. For each content rank, a
median intensity score is computed. The curve of intensity
on content is formed by these median scores. The lowest
point of the curve represents the psychological "c" point
which divides favorable from unfavorable opinion or atti-

tude (Suchman, 1950, pp. 220—223).

Mean Differences
Analyses

The one— and two-way analysis of variance was used
for testing hypotheses about the difference between group
means. For convenience of computer programming, the E
statistic was used for testing of all mean differences,
even though differences between two means are usually tested
by the g_statistic. Comparisons of E and E statistics have
shown that the results are the same (Edwards, 1965, p. 1&6).
If an F between group means was significant, inspection of
the size of the two means indicated which one was the high-
est and consequently the main contributor to the differences
reflected in the E ratio.

While a significant overall §_1eads.to nonbrejection
of the hypothesis being tested, we do not know whether
every mean is significantly different from every other.
Several methods have been prOposed by statisticians for

determining the nature of the differences between treatment

75

means. The a test for the four group comparisons is the
usual one while the F test used to test for differences
between the adjusted means of the "pairs-of—groups" is
equal to a two-tailed t test while also fully accounting
for the other experimental factors. The adjusted mean
equalizes or accounts for the variance in the size of the
group samples as well as the unequal sex distribution with-
in the samples. This procedure for testing for signifi-
cance among multiple means is approximately equal to Dun-
can's Multiple Means test (Edwards, 1950; Kramer, 1956,
pp. 307-310) up to and including three treatment means. The
procedure is somewhat more liberal than Duncan's when more
than three means are included, thus increasing the likeli-
hood of Type I error. The procedure also does not account
for the non-independence among the pairs-of treatment means.

The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was used
to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statistics.
The program was specially designed to handle unequal fre-
quencies occurring in the various categories. The computer
"print-out" also provided the frequencies, sums, means,
standard deviations, sums of squares, and sums of squared
deviations of the mean for each category, in addition to
the analysis of variance tables. The E statistic was also
printed out and enabled the researcher to know at a glance
whether or not the §_was significant. 6

The UNEQl routine also contains provision for dis-

ignating one or more dependent variables as missing for an

it"? ,
gm“;

4

«Kl I

I "'

"(I

!

If"

76

observation, but incorporating other dependent variables
listed on the Analysis of Variance table as non-missing.
The observation is then ignored for all dependent vari-
ables with missing values, but used in the analysis for
all dependent variables with non-missing values. The
number of missing values in each’category is printed after
the table giving statistics for the categories for each
dependent variable.

A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal
N's was used to analyze group-sex interaction (Ruble, Paul-
son, and Rafter, 1966). Since the samples were not equal
in size or in sex ratio within groups an "adjusted mean"
was computed on which to base all 2 tests. The adjusted
mean is shown in the tables along with the obtained mean.

Relational and/or Pre-
dictive‘Analyses

 

Partial correlation is 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 number of variables which are assumed to have some
relationship to a criterion, or dependent variable, can be
examined simultaneously. Often, when a series of Pearsonian
product-moment {Lg are computed between a criterion and a
set of variables considered to be predictors of the cri-

terion, Spurious conclusions may be obtained because the

77

predictor variables are themselves interrelated, rather
than directly predictive of the criterion. 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 recommended by Ward (1962, p. 206) because it "not only
reduces the dangers inherent in piecemeal research but also
facilitates the investigation of broad problems never be-
fore considered 'researchable.'"

In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter,
1966) a great deal of data can be gathered from one analysis.
Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for
any number of specified sub-groups, or partitionings, of
the data. For each specified group (e.g., total, male-
female, etc.) a number of statistics can be requested.
Those used for each partitioning in this research project
were: means and standard deviations for each variable,
and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables.

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 raw scores on the progressive
and traditional education scales, and the third set used

the scores from change orientation items.

78

In actual practice, only the descriptive statistics,
the zero-order correlations, and simple correlations with
z transformations (Edwards, 1965, pp. 82-83) have been
used in the analyses. Tests of significance of the corre-
lation coefficients from zero are the usual ones, with

tables entered for the appropriate degrees of freedom.

Level of Significance

The hypotheses for this study are to coincide with
Mader's (1967) study and will be written in the null form.
The stated level of significance will be set at .05.

The following section will consist of an hypothesis
statement, its derivation, and the instrumentation used to

test the hypothesis.
Statisticalggypotheses

Hypothccgs Related to
Contact'Frequencygand
"Atcitude'scores
flzl: Contact-IntensicyfInteracticns
§;la: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the amount of contact
with disabled persons as it effects scores on the inten-
sity statements of the attitude—toward-disabled-persons
(ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is
favorable or unfavorable.

Hypothesis Drivation.--From consideration of Rosen-

berg and Foa, and Guttman and Foa, to the effect that

79

contact frequency is directly related to attitude inten-
sity, regardless of content directions (see Chapter II).

Instrumentation.—-Contact frequency, by a direct

 

question, number 3 of the PQ-HP (Appendix A); ATDP ictcc-
cicy scores obtained through independent intensity ques-
tions following each attitude content statement (see
Appendix A).

Hzlc: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on frequency of contact with
education as it effects scores on the intensity statements
of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education scale, regard-
less of whether attitude is progressive or traditional.

Hypothesis Derivation.-—Same as H—la above.

 

Instrumentation.--Contact frequency, by a direct

 

 

question, number 3 of the PQ (Appendix A); education inggg-
cicy scores obtained as in H-la above (see Appendix A).

H12: Contact-Frequency Interactions

H223: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the relationship between
frequency of contact with disabled persons and (a) alter-
native rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact-
HP, and (c) ease of avoidance of the contact—HP.

Hypothesis Derivation.—-From considerations of

 

Homan's, Zetterberg, and various studies in special

education (see Chapter II).

80

Instrumentation.--Attitudes toward disabled persons,

 

by a 20 statement attitude instrument developed by Yuker
et a1. (1960) and modified for the purposes of the present
study (Appendix A). Contact variable by direct questions

in the PQ-HP: frequency by question number 3, alternatives

 

 

by number 9, enqument by number 8, and avoidance by number

2.

 

 

gzgc: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the relationship between
frequency of contact with education and (a) alternative
rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact with
education, and (c) ease of avoidance of the contact-HP.

Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as H-2a above.

 

Instrumentation.--Attitudes toward education, by a

 

20 statement attitude instrument developed by Kerlinger
(1959) and modified for the purposes of the present study.

Contact variable by direct questions in the: PQ frequency

 

by question number 3, alternatives by number 6, and enj y-

 

ment by number 5.

Hypotheses Related to
Attitude-Value
Interaction

 

 

 

H-3a: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
for power and control over others as they effect scores

indicating acceptance of disabled persons.

81

£2123 No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
for power and control over others as they effect scores
on the measures of progressive and traditional-attitudes-
toward-education.

Hypothesis Derivation.—-From considerations of
Wright in respect to asset vs. comparative valuations of
others (see Chapter II), and of Rosenberg to the effect
that the more the belief content of an attitude is in-
strumental to value maintenance, the more favorable will
be the evaluation of the object of the attitude. Per-
sons with high power needs are applying a comparative
yardstick in evaluations of others and should be ex-
pected 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 appears in findings of Whiteman and
Lockoff (1962) in respect to blindness and in Felty (1965).

Inctrumentation.--Need for power and control mea-

 

sured by the Leadership (L) scale of the Gordon Survey of
Interpersonal Values (Appendix A); attitudes-toward-dis-
abled-persons, as in H-2a, and attitudes toward education

as in H'2bo

H-Aa: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating recog-
nition and achievement as they effect scores measuring

acceptance of disabled persons.

82

$232: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating
recognition and achievement as they effect measures of
traditional and progressive attitudes toward education.

Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as H—3.

 

Instrumentation.--Need for recognition and achievement

 

measured by the Recognition (R) scale of the Gordon Survey of
Interpersonal Values (Appendix A), attitudes toward disabled
persons as in H—2a, and attitudes toward education as in H-2b.

H253: No differences will exist between regular teach-
ers and special educators on scores indicating need to help
others and to be generous as they effect scores indicating
acceptance of disabled persons.

5129‘ No differences will exist between regular teach-
ers and special educators on scores indicating need to help
others and to be generous as they effect attitudes toward
education.

EZEE‘ No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators, holding sex constant, on
(a) the need to help others, (b) attitudes toward the
disabled, and (c) progressive attitudes toward education.

Hypothesis Derivation.-—As in H-A, but stated in

 

terms of an asset—value orientation rather than a com-
parative-value orientation.

Instrumentation.--Need to be helpful and generous

 

measured by the Benevolence (B) scale of the Gordon Scale

83

of Interpersonal Values (Appendix A), attitudes-toward-
disabled-persons as in H-2a and attitudes toward education
as in H-2b.

Hypotheses Related to

Characteristics of

Rggular Teaccers and

of‘Special‘Educators

Hzga: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating atti-
tudes toward disabled persons as they relate to the
following change orientation variables: (a) health
practices, (b) child-rearing practices, and (c) birth
control practices.

Hzép: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating
traditional and progressive attitudes toward education
as they relate to the following change orientation vari-
ables: (a) health practices, (b) child-rearing practices,
and (c) birth control practices.

Hypothesis Derivation.—-Same as H-3 above and ex-
tended to connote that high scores on change orientation
represents departure from the status quo and high relation-
Ship to progressivism and concern for individual differ-
ences.

Instrumentation.--Change orientation measured by
questions 41-46 in the PQ attitudes toward the handi-
Capped measured as in H-2a and toward education as in

H-2b.

8A

Hypotheses Related to
Characteristics of
Those WorkingDirectly
with the Physically
Disabled

H-7: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators in mean attitude-toward-
disabled-persons scores.

Hypothesis Derivation.--From considerations of
Zetterberg (see Chapter II), to the effect that high fre-
quency of contact is positively associated with favor-
ableness of attitude if: (a) the interaction could be
easily avoided, and (b) there are other rewarding activ-
ities to engage in.

Instrumentation.--Attitudes toward disabled persons

measured as in H-2a.

H-8: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators in scores on measures of

Benevolence, Recognition, or Leadership,

 

Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as H-3 above.

 

Instrumentation.--Same as H-3, H-u, and H-5.

H;g: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators among scores indicating
either progressive or traditional attitudes toward
education.

Hypothesis Derivation.--Same as H-3.

Instgumentation.—-Same as H—2.

85

H;;g: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the following change
orientation variables: (a) health practices, (b) child-
rearing practices, and (c) birth control practices.

Hypothesis Derivaticc.--Same as H-3a, b and ex-
tended to imply that persons who score high on progres-
sive attitudes toward education will also score high on
the change orientation variables since both represent
dissatisfaction with the status quo and emphasizes indi-
vidual and empirical solutions to current problems.

Instrumentation.-—A series of questions in the

Personal Questionnaire.

H:;l: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on mean scores indicating
amount of contact with retarded and emotionally disturbed
persons.

Hypothesis Derivation.--From observations that
most physically handicapped children have multiple dis-
ability with retardation and emotional disturbance repre-
senging either the primary or secondary disability. In a
comparison of regular teachers and special educators it
seems reasonable to assume that a great number of con-
tacts with the handicapped would yield similar numbers
of contacts with the retarded and disturbed for special
educators, and that mean scores would differ signifi-

cantly.

86

Instrumentation.--Contact frequency with the men-
tally retarded as measured by question g PQ-HP and with
the emotionally disturbed as measured by question lg

PQ’HP o

§2l§3 No differences will exist between regular
elementary and secondary teachers on: (a) attitudes
toward disabled persons (ATDP) scores, (b) progressive
attitudes.toward education (PATE),~(c) traditional
attitudes toward education (TATE),-(d).Benevolenpe,

and (e) Leadership.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The analysis of data is organized into two main
sections: Section 1: Descriptive data on designated
characteristics of the sample; Section 2: Testing of
hypotheses and comparison of mean differences of various
scores when respondents are divided according to: (a)
special_ed;EAtgrt_Agdfrggular classroom teachers, (b)
sex, (c) contact with criterion, and (d) other indices.

Correlational relationships (zero-order and the z'*trans-

formations) will also be studied for selected variables.

SECTION 1: Descriptive Data

Descriptive characteristics of the sample are derived
from a combination of the FCC I and II and the CDC 3600
MDSTAT programs which provide a number of statistics useful
for simple demographic descriptions.

Table 1 gives the distribution of the total sample
according to occupational category and sex. Table 2 pre-
sents the stratified random sample of elementary and
secondary classroom teachers from specified counties in
Michigan. Close observation of these tables reveals small

N's in samples from some counties and the sex-linked

87

88

character of the elementary teachers. These factors lead

to difficulties in data analysis and interpretation.

TABLE l.—-Distribution of respondents according to
occupation and sex.

 

 

Occupation Male Female Total
Elementary Teachers 12 1A9 161
Secondary Teachers 78 71 1A9
Totals 90 220 310

 

Differences in Education,
Income, and Age Between
Respondent Groups

The data for three demographic variables of edu-
cation, inoome and age are contained in Table 3. Sample
size, means, standard deviation and the 2 statistic
(Edwards, 1965, p. 95) were computed for both the total
of special educators and regular classroom teachers. No
significant differences were found between the groups in
respect to the amount of education, income, and age.

The data for education and income were analyzed in
coded form. Table A gives an interpretation of the edu-
cation scores in terms of educational attainment. See
Special Code Book Instructions for income code. The data
is presented such that each score represents a range:
i.e., grades completed or amount of income. The data is
ordinal in that a higher mean score always represents higher

educational attainment or greater amount of income earned.

89

 

 

 

mp on 00: mm and com Hm Hod oom mHMpOB
so am mm mm mm em mm 0H NH meme:
aw um om om ma mm mm mm mm mmmmmnmw
ooa om om ooa om om 00H om om mommm3Mfinm
mm mm m: Hm za mm o» 0H mm Gonzfiao
.MfisOH
on mm on um mm mm pm pm mm mammm
,eoaeaee
mm mm om Hm mm am am mm mm eHHooamH
zesowo
sossoomo
me em 0: mm a om OOH om om mooomw
emomzmao
sappz<
mm mm mm mm ma ma mm :H ma xfio>caamno
possm
acme pecans ocean. uses omens». condo pace tosses». .oopmo.
Iaom Iom Iaapmfim Iacm tom lacunae Iaom 1mm lacunae
moafimGGOfipmodo .meaHmCCOHpmoda moafimccOHpmmsa mmfiussoo
Hmuoe memesoomm mamusoscam

 

.cmwfinofiznlmsmnomop mamosooom one mamasoscam no panama Scenes oofimfiumApmll.m mqm<e

90

TABLE 3.--Sample size, means, standard deviations, and

the 2 statistic in respect to three demographic variables

for amount of education, income, and age comparing
special educators and regular classroom teachers.

 

Group N Mean S.D. E Sig. of E

 

Amount of Education

 

 

Special 1
Educators 3A5 7.29 .95 .16 N.S.
Regular
Teachers 310 7.39 1.57
Amount of Income
Special
Educators 344 10.8 “.04 .A6 N.S.
Regular
Teachers 310 10.42 1.22
Age

Special
Educators 3A5 A0.6l 12.89 2.11 N.S.
Regular
Teachers 306 No.80 12.80

1

N.S. . Not Significant at P < .05.

91

TABLE A.--Interpretation of education scores in terms of
actual educational attainment.

 

Range of Interval
Score Interpretation in Terms of
Schooling Completed

 

1 3 years or less 0-3 inclusive
2 6 years or less A-6 inclusive
9 years or less 7—9 inclusive
12 years or less 10-12 inclusive
5 some college 13-15 inclusive
6 college degree
7 work beyond degree
8 advanced degree

 

Summary of Descriptive
Data in Table 3

No significant differences were found between special
educators and regular classroom teachers as indicated in
Table 3 which is divided into three demographic variables
for education, income, and age. The sample size is ade-
quate for such a comparison. It should be noted that the
level of significance for the 2 test of difference of

means was set at .05.

92

SECTION 2: Hypothesis Testing, Mean
Differencesyyand‘Correlational

Analysis

Hypotheses Related to

Contact Frequency, In-
tensity, and Attitude

Scores

H21: Contact-Intensity Interactions.

3:12: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the amount of contact
with disabled persons as it effects scores on the inten-
sity statements of the attitude-toward-disabled-persons
(ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is
favorable or unfavorable.

Table 5 represents a comparison of special educators
and regular classroom teachers on the interaction of con-
tact and intensity with regard to disabled persons. It
can be noted from this table and the tables that follow
that the actual significance level of the H statistic is
printed out rather than merely indicating if it is signifi-
cant at a stated level. It was decided to present the
actual H value since the computer program provides this
information. As is indicated the resulting significance
of the H statistic is sufficient to reject the null
hypothesis at the predetermined level of significance,

i.e., P < .05.

93

 

:m.H mm.m mm.m mw.om Nam mhmnomme

 

 

smaswmm
moo. Hoo. mm.» am.ma ma.H mm.: 03.5 Ho.mw mam mLOpmosom
Hmfiommm
pompcoo macho pomucoo macaw .Q.m use: ..Q.m smoz
zmz m mmz H zmz m >m3 H mpfimsmusH z muons
I I mae<
a co .wfim a eemeeooumm

 

.pomusoo mo mososuoam pom wsfiaaoaucoo .oamom Amme<v msomaoalpmHDMmHo
losmzoplmospfippm map so moaoom mufimsousfi co msonomop Eoopwmmao amaswma one mLOpmosom
Hmfioodm wsasmasoo ofipmfipmum m cam .coapmfi>mo campcmum .mcmms .mufim mmqsmmll.m mqm<e

9A

H:yp: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on frequency of contact
with education as it effects scores on the intensity
statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education
scale, regardless of whether attitude is progressive or
traditional.

Table 6 indicates significant differences between
special educators and regular teachers on progressive
attitudes toward education scores as effected by contact
with education. When contact is held constant the H
statistic is smaller, and a significant difference re-
mains. The null hypothesis is rejected.

Table 7 reveals that the mean differences on the
traditional intensity scores for both groups are not
significantly different.

While the null hypothesis can be rejected as it re-
lates to progressive intensity scores it cannot be rejected
with regard to traditional intensity scores.

Table 8 presents the zero-order correlations between
contact and intensity scores on the attitudes toward-dis-
abled-persons scale, and the progressive and traditional
attitude scales for each group. The correlations for
males and females within the regular teachers group are
also given.

No significant correlations are indicated in Table 8

for the special educators between amount of contact with

95

 

 

 

sm.H mm.» Hm.m :m.mm 0mm meoeemoe
amstmm
:m. we. mm.H mm. mm.H am.» mm.m wH.mm mHm meooeosom
HmHomqm
pomucoo asoaw pompsoo asoao .m.m :moz .Q.m cmmz .
mmz m mmz H zmz m hmz H z Qsoso
l I weapcoo szmCmch
a do .mfim a eoaeeosom wees

 

.pomucoo mo zoCmSUmam you wcHHHoapcoo .oHMom Am9<9v COHpmoscolosmzopIoUSpprm
IHmCOHpHomau on» so mosoom thmsousH so phoneme» EoosmmmHo mmszma paw msopmosoo
HmHomam wcHamano OHpmHumpm M was .soHumH>mo osmosmpm .mcmms .oNHm mHQsmmll. w mqm¢e

 

 

 

em.a mm.e m:.m ma.mm 0mm meeeoeee
sdewmm
mooo.v mooo.v mm.mH nm.mH mm.H mm.> mH.m Hm.:m mHm whereosem
HmHomdm
pompcoo macaw pompcoo dsoaw .Q.m amps .Q.m 2mm:
mmz m zmz H zmz m mes H
I .l pompsoo szmcmpsH z Qsosw
a do .mam m :oHeeosom meem

 

.pompcoo mo homosuoam pom mcHHHoapcoo .mHMom Ame<mv COHumosooloamzoploosuHupm

Im>Hmwmawoaa on» no moaoom muHmcmpsH so maonomop EoosmmmHo mmstma cam maoumodom

HmHomam wsHMMQSoo OHpmeMpm m use .COHumH>oo osmosmpm .mcmms .muHm mHQEmmII.m mqm<e

96

TABLE 8.--Zero-order correlations between amount of con-

tact with disabled persons and intensity scores on atti-

tudes-toward-disabled-persons scale, and the progressive

and traditional attitude scales for special educators and
regular classroom teachers.

 

 

 

ATDP PATE TATE
Group Sex Intensity Intensity Intensity
r N r N r N
Special 1
Educators Total .09 318 .07 343 .04 343
Regular
Teachers Male .18* 76 .10 77 .21“ 77
Female .00 171 -.O7 173 .09 173
Total .05 247 -.03 250 .13“ 250
*P < .05.
1

Mader (1967) did not analyze the data separately by
sex, thus only totals are given.

disabled persons and intensity scores on the ATDP scale, PATE,
or TATE scales. Although no significant correlation was evi-
dent for regular teachers between contact with disabled per-
sons and intensity scores on the ATDP and PATE scales, the
correlations were in the direction of the research hypotheses.
A significant relationship (P < .05) does exist between HP-
contact and intensity scores on the TATE scale.

Hzgcz No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the relationship between
frequency of contact with disabled persons and (a) alter-
native rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact—

HP, and (c) ease of avoidance of the contact—HP.

97

Difficulty was encountered in testing H-2a since
statistical tests for ascertaining the difference between
two multiple correlations are not available. The method
used to test this hypothesis was to determine if a
significant difference existed between two simple corre—
lation coefficients obtained from the MDSTAT program.
Edwards (1965, pp. 82—83) uses the z' transformation in
testing the significance between two obtained r's.

Table 9 shows there are no significant differences
between regular teachers and special educators with re-
gard to the relationship between amount of contact with
disabled persons as effected by the variables of alter-
natives, and avoidance. The null hypothesis cannot be
rejected for alternatives and avoidance, but it is re—
jected for the variable of enjoyment.

TABLE 9.--Sample size, simple correlations, the 2 values,
and a statement of significance in comparing special edu-
cators and regular classroom teachers on the relationship

between frequency of contact with disabled persons and
alternatives, enjoyment, and avoidance of contacts.

 

 

Ed- HP- HP-
Group Alternative Enjoyment Avoidance
r N r N r N
Special
Educators .06 317 .13 318 .14 310
Regular
Teachers .01 246 -.03 251 -.17 247
z = .58 z = 1.91* z = —.31

 

*P < .05.

98

HZHH: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the relationship between
frequency of contact with education and (a) alternative
rewarding Opportunities, (b) enjoyment of contact with
education, and (c) ease of avoidance of the contact-HP.

Table 10 reveals significant differences between
regular teachers and special educators on the relation-
ship between frequency of contact with education and
other contact variables of alternatives, enjoyment, and
avoidance. Therefore, the null ngg is rejected.

TABLE 10.--Samp1e size, simple correlations, the 2 values
and a statement of significance in comparing special edu-
cators and regular classroom teachers on the relationship

between frequency of contact with education and alter-
natives, enjoyment, and avoidance of contacts.

 

 

Ed- Ed- HP-
Group Alternatives Enjoyment Avoidance
r N r N r N
Special
Educators .19 345 .26 345 .08 310
Regular
Teachers -.12 303 .06 310 -.12 246
z = 3.92* z = 2.57* z = 2.32”

 

*P < .05.

99

Hypotheses Related to
Attitude and Value
Interactions

 

 

H213: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
for power and control over others as they effect scores
indicating acceptance of disabled persons.

This hypothesis was tested by the analysis of
variance as was H:£ and the results are reported in
Table 11. There was not sufficient difference between
the groups to disconfirm the hypothesis at the .05 level
of significance.

H:1g: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
for power and control over others as they effect scores
on the measures of progressive and traditional-attitudes-
toward-education.

In both Tables 12 and 13 the results indicate a
significant difference between regular teachers and special
educators on the leadership value as related to both pro-
gressive and traditional attitudes toward education. The
null hypothesis is rejected.

H233: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating
recognition and achievement as they effect scores mea-

suring acceptance of disabled persons.

100

 

 

 

mm.o mo.HH mm.z om.m: mwm mammomme
smstom
mm. mm. 0H. NH. om.m 0H.mH mm.m wo.:: 3mm msOpmosom
HmHomom
oHnmaoomoH macaw QHzmaoommH moose .Q.m :moz .Q.m saw:

as; m as: H as; m as3 H z ozone

I I psoucoo

a do .wam m oaemeeoeoq mesa

.mmaoom osHm> QHnmaoomoH an oouoommo mm mHmOm mcomsmm

IooHommHoI psmzopImUSpprm emu mo mwaoom so muonomop EoommmmHo amstoa one mmOpmozoo
HmHoodm wcHLMQEoo OHHmHumum M was .GOHumH>oo osmosmum .mcmos .mNHm mHQEmmII. HH mHm<B

101

 

ww.m mo.HH mo.: om.~m wmm maenoeee
peHewem

mooo.v mooo.v ss.mm :m.:m om.m oH.mH mo.: om.mm mmm mooseosom

 

 

HeHoedm
QHnmaeoeeH gnome QchaepemH Q3090 .Q.m ceez .Q.m see:
he: m we: H mez m he: H z macaw
I, I. pcepcoo
a do .mHm m A.aHHmsoeeeHI . wees

 

.memoow eeHe> aHaneoeeH an oepoemwe me eHeom COHpeosem Usesop
ImeoeppreI HeQOHuHoesp esp mo meaoow co whenoeep EooswmeHo Heszen use emceeoeom
HeHoedm wcHHedEoo QHHmeeum m one COHpeH>eo oseosepm .msees .eNHm mHQEemII. MH mqm<e

 

Hw.e mo.HH m:.m mm.om mam meeeeeee

 

 

HeHsmmm
mooo.v mooo.v :m.mm mm.wm om.m OH.mH m:.m mo.mm .mmm weepeosom
HeHerm
QHcmaeeeeH macaw chmseoemH macho .o.m see: .Q.m see:
as: N am: H as: m as: H
I I usepcoo z meoso
a co .me a oHemeeeeeH weed

 

.mesoom ezHe> QHnmaeoemH mo empoemme me eHeom COHpeosoeIoseBOp
ImeGSHpreI e>Hmmeswoaa emu mo meaoom co msecoeep soommmeHo seHemes one emceeozee
HeHoedm msHaeoEoo OHpmeeum m use .COHpeH>eo oneocepm .mcees .eNHm eHoeemII. mH mqmee

102

The differences reported in Table 14 are not
significant at the .05 level of significance. The null
hypothesis cannot be rejected.

3:39: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating
recognition and achievement as they effect measures of
traditional and progressive attitudes toward education.

The null hypothesis 3:59 can be rejected as the
results in Tables 15 and 16 show significant differences
between regular teachers and special educators on both
traditional and progressive scale scores with recogni-
tion value scores held constant.

H223: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
to help others and to be generous as they effect scores
indicating acceptance of disabled persons.

The above hypothesis was not disconfirmed as indi—
cated by Table 17 with no significant differences found
between special educators and regular classroom teachers.

H:HH: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating need
to help others and to be generous as they effect attitudes
toward education.

Tables 18 and 19 indicate that the differences are
significant between scores for regular teachers and special
educators on the traditional and progressive attitude toward
education scales with the benevolence value scores held

constant.

103

 

om.: om.m no.2 NH.NN :mm msmcoeme

 

 

eeszem
mooo.v mooo.v sw.mm mm.mm mm.s mm.oH Ho.: mm.mm smm weepeoeem
HeHoeam
COHpHcmooem asosc COHustooem arose .Q.m see: .Q.m see:
He; m we; H as; m was H
I I. usepcoo z Qsoso
e we .wHw w cOHeHewooem wees

 

.mesoom esHee COHuchooes an oeuoemme me eHeom COHHeosoeIosezop
ImepdquueIHeCOHpHoesu emu so mesoom so msecoeew EoosmmeHo sestes one wsOpeoeoe
HeHoeam wcHseoEOO oHpmHueum M use .COHpeH>eo oseocepm .mseee .eNHm eHdEemII. mH mqm<e

 

00.: om.m mm.: mm.m: mmm whosoemB

 

 

sestem
me. we. mo. mso. mm.s mm.OH Hm.m so.:: omm meoweoeom
HeHoedm
COHpchoomm asoeo COHuHsmooem azosw .Q.m new: .Q.m I see:
He; m Hex H see m Hes H
I. I useusoo z Qsoso
w so .mHm w cOHeHewoeem mesa

 

.mesoom esHe> COHuchooes an oeuoesse me eHeom mcomeen
IeeHoemHoIosezopIeosqupe emu so mesoom co msenoemp EcosmmeHo sestes one meoweosoe
HeHomam wcHseasoo OHHmeepm M use .COHpeH>eo oseocepm .msees .eNHm eHasemII. :H wqmes

104

 

:>.m :m.mH 30.: mm.mz mmm msmzoeme

 

 

seHewem
,ms. as. MH. OH. mH.w :w.mH Hw.m no.2: mmm msOpeosum
HeHoeam
moseHo>esem Qsosu moseHo>esem msosw .Q.m see: .Q.m seez
mez m mez H mez m zez H z geosu
I I. usewsoo
b so .mHm m moseHo>msem mms<

 

.mesoom eSHe> eoseHo>mses so uewoesse me eHeom msomeea
IueHsemHquseKOHIeusqupe esw so mesoom so msesoeep EoosmmeHo sestes use msOpeosue
HeHoesm wsHsessoo OHHmeewm m use sOHpeH>eu useusewm .msees .mNHm eHasemII.sH mquB

 

om.: ow.m m:.m om.om 2mm msmnoeme

 

 

sestem
mooo.v mooo.v m:.um Hm.um mm.s mm.OH m:.m mo.mm smm meoweosum
HeHerm
sOHpstooem ssoso sOHpstooem Qsosu .Q.m see: .Q.m see:
Hes m as: H as: m as: H
I _I usepsoo z Qsosw
s so .me w eOHeHeeoeew wsew

 

.mesoom esHe> sOHustOOos ms ueuoesse me eHeom sOHweosueIuseZOp
ImeuSppreIe>Hmmeswosq cm» so mesoom so meesoeep EoosmmeHo seHsmes use weepeosue
HeHoeam wsHsessoo oHpmeepm m use .sOHpeH>eu useuseum .msees .eNHm eHsEemII.uH mqm<s

105

 

:m.m :m.mH m:.m ow.om :mm msmsoeme

 

 

sestem
mooo.v mooo.v :o.um mm.um MH.m :w.mH m:.m mo.mm mmm meoweosum
HeHooqm
moseHo>esem .Qsosc moseHo>esem, msosw I .Q.m. see: .o.m see:
as: m as: H see H see H z goose
usepsoo
m we .wHw m eoeoHo>ecew wsew

 

.mesoom esHe> moseHo>osen so ueuoesse me eHeom sOHueosueI use30p
IeuSprueI m>HmmmswosQ esp so mesoom so msesoeeu EoosmmeHo sestes use weepeosue
HeHerm wsHseQEoo oHpmeepm M use .sOHpeH>eu useusepm .msems .eNHm eHQsemII. mH mHmHB

 

:>.m :m.mH :o.: wH.>m :mm msmsoeme

 

 

seHsmem
mooo.v mooo.v oo.:m m:.mm mH.m :w.mH mo.: mu.mm umm meoweosuw
HeHoesm
mosmHo>esem dsosu moseHo>esem ssoso .o.m see: .Q.m see:
zez m zez H mez m hex H z dsosc
I. I usewsoo
s so .me w eoeeHoeeeew wees

 

.mesoom esHe> moseHo>esen an uepoemmo we eHeom sOHpeosueIuse30p
IeuSHpreIHesOHuHuesu ms» so mesoom so msesoeep EoosmmeHo sestms use msOpeosue
HeHerm wsHseano OHHmeepm m use sOHpeH>mu useuseum .msees .eNHm mHQEemII. mH mHmse

106

H22c: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators, holding sex constant, on
(a) the need to help others, (b) attitudes toward the
disabled, and (c) progressive attitudes toward education.

Analysis of Table 20, indicates that no significant
difference exists between the groups when sex is held
constant for Benevolence and attitudes toward disabled
persons. However, a significant difference was found
when sex was not held constant in the one-way analysis of
variance on the need to help others. It is further evi-
dent that a significant difference exists between special
educators and regular teachers, when sex is held constant,
on progressive attitudes toward education and the null hy-
pothesis can be rejected.

Hypotheses Related to

Change Orientation
and Attitude Scores

 

Hzgg: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating atti-
tudes toward disabled persons as they relate to the follow-
ing change orientation variables: (a) health practices,
(b) child rearing practices, and (c) birth control
practices.

High scores on change orientation represents a
departure from the status quo and high relationships to
individual differences. A summarization is contained in

Table 21 of the relationships as tested by the z'

107

TABLE 20.--Sample size, means, standard deviations, and H

statistic comparing special educators and regular class-

room teachers, (while holding sex constant) on Benevolence,

attitudes toward the disabled, and progressive-attitude-
toward-education scores.

 

 

 

 

H Sig. of H
Group N Mean S.D.
1 Way 2 Way 1 Way 2 Way
Group Sex Group Sex
Benevolence
Special
Educators 335 19.92 8.09 4.15 .278 .016 .605
Regular
Teachers 295 19.94 5.74
ATDP
Content
Special
Educators 340 44.06 5.82 .008 .011 .89 .88
Regular

Teachers 306 44.02 4.93

PATE
Content

Special
Educators 341 31.99 3.52 27.79 27.18 <.0005 (.0005

Regular
Teachers 309 30.56 3.39

 

108

TABLE 21.--Samp1e size, simple correlations, the 2 values,

and a statement of significance in comparing special edu-

cators and regular classroom teachers on attitudes toward

disabled persons as related to health, child rearing, and
birth control practices.

 

 

 

ATDP ATDP ATDP
Health Child Birth
Rearing Control
r N r N r N
Special
Educators -.02 343 -.08 343 .03 342
Regular
Teachers -.10 304 -.09 302 -.03 303
z - -l.27 z - -.128 z . .769
P < .05.

transformation and similar to the analysis of Hzg
(Edwards, 1965, pp. 82-83). No significant differences
were found between special educators and regular teach-
ers on attitudes toward disability and change orientation
variables and the null hypothesis could not be rejected.
However, the findings were in the direction of the re-
search hypotheses.

H;§p: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on scores indicating
traditional and progressive attitudes toward education
as they relate to the following change orientation vari-
ables: (a) health practices, (b) child rearing practices,

and (c) birth control practices.

109

Table 22 indicates that no significant differences

exist between special educators and regular teachers on

TATE scores and the relationship to change orientation

variables.

TABLE 22.--Sample size,

On the PATE scores a significant difference

simple correlations, the 2 values,

and a statement of significance in comparing special edu-
cators and regular classroom teachers on TATE and PATE as
they relate to health, child rearing, and birth control

practices.

 

 

 

. Child Birth
Group health Rearing Control
r N r N r N
TATE
Special
Educators -.11* 344 -.09 344 -.03 343
Regular
Teachers -.06 307 -.l6* 305 —.13* 305
Z - -0614]. Z - -0876 Z "‘ -0127
PATE
Special
Educators .05 344 .15* 344 .003 343
Regular
Teachers .09 307 .30* 305 .12* 305
z = .506 z = 2.03* z = 1.57
*P < .05.

110

was found between the groups on child rearing practices
as a change orientation variable. Close inspection of
Table 22 reveals that the difference is opposite the pre-
dicted direction with regular teachers reflecting a
higher relationship between progressive attitudes toward
education and child rearing practices than special edu-
cators. It can also be observed that other relationships
between the PATE and change variables were opposite the
predicted direction.

Zero-order Correlations

Between Attitudes and
Values

 

 

Table 23 summarizes the relationships between atti-
tudes toward the handicapped and values for Special edu-
cators and regular classroom teachers. Analysis of the
data indicates that there are no significant relation-
ships between the variables.

Additional information (Table 23) for the regular
teacher group was included by giving the correlations by
sex. However, no significant relationships were evident.

A summary of the zero-order correlations between
attitudes toward education and values is contained in
Table 24 for both Special educators and regular teachers.

There was a negative correlation between progressive
attitudes and conformity for special educators signifi-
cant at a .01 level. Between the traditional scale and

conformity value there was a significant (P < .01)

111

 

 

 

.mo. v m
mom mo. mam :o.I mam oo.I mmm mo. mmm mo. mom so.I Hepoe
:om mo. How mo.u How 30.: How mo. How mo. How mo.n eHesos
mm :0. mm mo.I mm OH. mm mo. mm 00. mm uH.I eHez
msesoems
sestem
emm mo.I mmm mo.I umm mo. emm mc.n mmm mo. mmm 00.: Hence
. meoweosum
HeHoesm
z s z s z s z s z s z s
QHsm moseH moseu sOHpHs me msHe> ssosw
IseueeH Io>esmm IseseusH Iwooem Issossoo psosssm
.msesoeep

EoosmmeHo sestes use weepeosue HeHoesm sou eHeom eSHe> sousow esp use Assessoov
eHeom wsomseslueHsemHquseSOHImeuSppre seezpes msOHpeHessoo smuLOIoseNII.mm MHmSm

112

.Ho. v m**

 

 

.mo. v m*
:mm new Ham Ham new new Ham Ham Ham 2mm 3mm 3mm 2
*:H.I mo. *eH. mo.I *wsH.I OH. mo.I Ho. mm:m. **uH.I mo.I 0H. s Hepos
mom mom mom mom mom mom mom mom mom mom mom mom 2
*mH.I oo. *uH. Ho.I **om.l so. mo.I Ho.I ssmm. OH.I oo.I mo. s eHeEem
mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm mm 2
so.I mo. MH. mo.I HH.I :H. Ho.I mo. smmm. **sm.l *xmm.l *Hm. e eHez
msesoeee
seHewem
smm smm smm smm smm smm smm smm smm smm smm smm z
**:H.I mo. mo. mo. **mH.I mo. mo.I mo.I *smm. **om.l uo.| mo. s Hepos
meoweosum
HeHoesm
s m E m B m B m B m. B m
sHsm moseH moseu sOHuHs mpH esHe> ssosu

IseueeH Io>esem IseseusH Iwooem Iseossoo peosssm

 

.msesoeep EoosmmeHo
sestes use ms0peosue HeHoesw sou eHeom eSHe> sousou esp use Assessoov mmHeom sOHueo
Isue ARV HesOHpHuesp use Hmv o>Hmmeswoss seezues msOHpeHossoo seuAOIoseNII.:m mqm<e

113

positive correlation. The same negative and positive
correlations for the same variables were evident for
regular teachers. Both groups had significant (P < .01)
negative correlations between traditional attitudes to—
ward education and the independence value score.

There was a positive correlation between tradi-
tional attitudes and benevolence for the regular teach-
ers at a P < .01 level of significance. Special edu-
cators and regular teachers groups indicated a signifi-
cant (P < .01) negative correlation between leadership
and traditional attitudes.

The method used for determining a difference be-
tween the zero-order correlations for the two groups in-
volves using the gftransformation (Edwards, 1965, p. 82).
Testing for the difference between two correlation co-
efficients was tested at a .05 level of significance.

The only significant difference between regular teachers
and special educators was on the traditional attitudes
toward education and benevolence. Regular teachers were.
more traditional and less benevolent than were special
educators. The expressed significance lends support to
the theoretical framework of the value-attitude relation-

ship for Special educators and regular teachers.

114

Hypothesis Related to Charac-
teristics of Those Workipg
Directly with the Physically
Disabled

H11: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators in mean attitude—toward-
disabled-persons scores.

A one—way analysis of variance design for unequal
N's was used to analyze the data and test for signifi-
cance (Ruble, Paulson, and Rafter, 1966). As indicated
in Table 25 no significant difference was found in mean
scores on the ATDP scale and the hypothesis cannot be
rejected.
TABLE 25.--Sample size, means, standard deviation, and

H statistic comparing special educators and regular 1
classroom teachers on mean scores of the ATDP scale.

 

 

 

 

F Sig. of 3
Group N ATDP -
Mean S.D. 1 Way 1 Way

Special
Educators 340 44.06 5.82 .008 .89
Regular
Teachers 306 44.02 4.93

1

Low scores on the ATDP (content) scale indicate
DOS—itive attitudes.

H-8: No differences will exist between regular
teacdiers and special educators in scores on measures of

BeneNrolence, Recogpition, or Leadership.

 

 

115

Table 26 reveals that regular teachers and special
educators do not differ significantly on measures of
Benevolence, Recognition or Leadership. The null hy-
pothesis cannot be disconfirmed for these variables.
TABLE 26.--Sample size, means, standard deviation, and
H statistic comparing special educators and regular

classroom teachers on measures of Benevolence, Recogni-
tion, and Leadership.

 

 

 

 

 

H Sig. of H
Group N 1 Way 1 Way
Mean S.D. Group Group
Benevolence
Special
Educators 338 19.90 8.07 .41 .53
Regular
Teachers 295 19.54 5.74
Recognition
Special
Educators 339 10.55 7.95 2.14 .13
Regular
Teachers 295 9.80 4.09
Leadership
Special
Educators 337 12.17 9.28 1.81, .175
Regular

Teachers 289 11.28 6.75

 

P < .05.

116

H;g: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators among scores indicating
either progressive or traditional attitudes toward edu-
cation.

Significant differences between the groups on both
progressive and traditional attitudes toward education
are given in Table 27. The null hypothesis is rejected.
TABLE 27.--Sample size, means, standard deviations, and
H statistic comparing special educators and regular class-

room teachers on scores indicating progressive or tradi-
tional attitudes toward education.

 

 

Group N Mean S.D. H Sig. of H
PATE
Special ..
Educators 341 31.99 3.52 27.79 <.0005
Regular
Teachers 309 30.56 3.39
TATE
Special
Educators 341 25.63 4.00 26.45 <.0005
Regular
Teachers 309 27.24 4.01

H-lO: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on the following change
orientation variables: (a) health practices, (b) child

rearing practices, and (c) birth control practices.

117

Table 28 summarizes the analyses of the data con-
cerning change orientation. As indicated, significant
differences do exist between special educators and regu-
lar teachers on health and child rearing practices. The
null hypotheses are rejected for both variables. No
difference between the groups was found on birth control
practices.

TABLE 28.--Sample size, means, standard deviations, and
H statistic comparing special educators and regular class-

room teachers on change orientation variables of health,
child rearing, and birth control practices.

 

Y—

 

Group N Mean S.D. H Sig. of H
Health

Special

Educators 343 4.64 .92 3.72 .05

Regular

Teachers 308 4.49 1.07

Child Rearing

 

Special

Educators 343 3.94 1.19 24.95 <.0005
Regular

Teachers 306 3.48 1.15

Birth Control

Special

Educators 342 3.35 .81 .77 .384
Regular

Teachers 306 3.30 .61

——¥

118

HZHH: No differences will exist between regular
teachers and special educators on mean scores indicating
amount of contact with retarded and emotionally disturbed
persons.

Table 29 shows a significant difference in fre-
quency of contact with both retarded and emotionally
disturbed persons for regular teachers and special edu-
cators.

TABLE 29.--Sample size, means, standard deviation, and
H statistic comparing special educators and regular class-

room teachers on frequency of contact with the mentally
retarded (MR) the emotionally disturbed persons (EDP).

 

 

 

 

 

H Sig. of H
Group N Mean S.D. *1 way 1 way
Group Group
MR Contact
Special
Educators 343 4.17 1.27 239.09 <.0005
Regular
Teachers 300 2.53 1.42
EDP Contact
Special
Educators 342 3.39 1.56 112.88 <.0005
Regular

Teachers 302 2.18 1.30

L

119

Hzlg: No differences will exist between regular
elementary and secondary teachers on: (a) attitudes
toward disabled persons (ATDP) scores, (b) progressive
attitudes toward education (PATE), (c) traditional
attitudes toward education (TATE), (d) Benevolence,
and (e) Leadership.

The results contained in Table 30 reveal that no
significant differences were found between regular ele-
mentary and secondary teachers on attitudes toward dis-
abled persons or on traditional and progressive atti-
tudes toward education. While the null hypothesis can-
not be rejected for the attitude scales, it can be re-
jected for Benevolence and Leadership. Regular ele-
mentary and secondary teachers differed significantly on
these values at the .05 level. This raises questions
about the postulated relationship between value and
attitudes.

An attempt has been made in Table 31 to summarize
all of the statistical hypotheses discussed in this
Chapter by indicating their rejection or acceptance as

well as direction in terms of the research hypotheses.

120

TABLE 30.--Sample size, means, standard deviations, and
H statistic comparing regular elementary and secondary
classroom teachers on ATDP, PATE, TATE, Benevolence, and

 

 

 

 

Leadership.
Group N Mean S.D. H Sig. of H
ATDP
Elementary 159 44.07 5.62 .02 .852
Secondary 147 43.97 4.08
PATE
Elementary 160 27.49 3.95 .10 .75
Secondary 149 26.97 4.07
TATE
Elementary 160 30.44 3.41 .004 .90
Secondary 149 30.68 3.37
Benevolence
Elementary 149 20.89 4.81 6.77 .009
Secondary 146 18.16 6.27
Leadership
Elementary 146 9.22 5.43 15.80 <.0005

Secondary 143 13.38> 7.30

121

mHmesooozs sosemmos so soHpoesHu m>Hpewez
meespooms soseemes so soHuoosHu e>HpHmom
mHmmspooss HHss so soHpoemom
mHmesposms HHss so mosepseoou

"fl
O><+

.meoHsoess HosesOo spsHs u o .moonoess wsHsees uHHso u o .meoHooess spHees u s I COHpeoseHso ewsesOH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ + + + + + + I I + I III +++ +++
H H o o o H H o H H H H o o o o OHo ooo ooo
w m. wees we<a ease wow w: reeHw eHHeo eeHmeH wees wus w w w no; to: no:
- . weew wsas woea
mosoom
mseusoUem Hoseooosm sonewseHso wosOOm mosoom moe< sOHweosoHso
msewseEeHm peepsoo omseso see: see: seez H mwseso
mHI: HHI: OHI: me mIm HI: me
+ + +
H H H Hov
+ I + +. + + I I I I I I + + + + + +
H o o H H o H H o H H o o H o Hmv o H H
wees woeH w wees wees mesa ws<s wees mesa wees wees ease oea ch eHH wees wees wose
:oHeeeoew Hov
ooHommHo Hey H ,
eHmeoecH
xm moCm
.m Ho>esmm sOHpHsmOQmm ostsouemq Ssz hostedesm use zosmsomem we
peepsoo peepsoo HneHse>
omI: muw HI: . mum NIH HIw

.meosuosss soseomes esp so HHHHesOHuoesHu

use mHmosposzs HH:s HeoHpmeepm seem so sOHuoewes so moseooeooe msHueoHusH mH swoops» H momesuooas so aseessmII.Hm mqm<e

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The original objectives of the study will be sum-
marized and an attempt will be made to integrate the re-
sults and implications with these objectives. This
chapter will be divided into three major sections:

Part I: Summary of the Theoretical and Methodological
Issues, Part II: Discussion of the Results and Impli-
cations of Hypotheses Testing, and Part III: Recommen-
dations.
Part I: Summary of the Theoretical
and Methodological‘Issues
Nature of the Problem

In the introductory chapter it was noted that techno-
logical change has, rather suddenly, presented a dramatic
challenge to several of our nations institutions, especially
education. It was suggested that many obstacles to re-
sponsible social change are attitudinal in nature and must
be studied as they become diffused into the cultural situ-
ation. In the past decade there has been an obvious in-

crease in the interest in research concerning attitudes

122

123

toward the rehabilitation of the disabled and toward edu-
cation. The main focus of the present study was to com-
pare attitudes of two educational groups, i.e., special
educators and regular classroom teachers, as to inter-
personal values, personal contact, attitudes, and on cer-
tain demographic variables. An assumption has been made
that-both value and contact serve as determinants of

attitudes (Friesen, 1966).

Summary of Theory

The theoretical framework of the present research
is generally consistent with the social-psychological
orientation of Wright (1960) and Meyerson (1948, 1963) as
far as attitudes toward physical disability are concerned.
While their interactional propositions included such con-
cepts as self, other, reference groups, and‘role, the
main focus of this study has to do with attitudes and»
values as they relate to physical disability and to edu-
cation. Underlying these assumptions is a belief in the
active nature of the individual as an agent of change in
his physical and social environment.

Kerlinger's theoretical model was used to study
attitudes toward education. He postulates a basic di-
chotomy, (but not polarization) which consists of a re-
strictive-traditional or permissive-progressive dimen-
Sion of educational attitudes. He holds that traditional

and progressive attitudes represent two relatively

124

independent underlying factors or ideologies. He fur-
ther suggests that the sharpness of this dichotomy is
dependent upon occupational role, knowledge of and experi-
ence with education as well as the perceived importance

of education (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). The present re-
search is based on Kerlinger's assumption that the pro-
gressive-traditional dimension of attitudes toward edu—
cation generalize to attitudes in other areas.

Katz (1960) and Rosenberg (1960) have postulated
certain relationships between attitudes and values. Katz
points out that people are generally more inclined to
change or give up attitudes inconsistent or unrelated to
central values. From this orientation, 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 individual partici-
pation and the inherent assets of the person.

Theory has suggested that values are important,
determinants of attitudes. Value orientations can be
viewed as the basis of attitudes taken toward various
social objects. Dembo g§_g;. (1956) and Wright (1960)
have formulated a conceptual framework that is specifi-
cally related to attitudes toward physical disability.
According to their conceptual framework values can be

clustered as to whether they are derived from comparisons

125

or intrinsic assets. Although circumstances may require

 

comparative evaluation, the EEESE theory holds that this
need never be done without evaluating the disabled person
for his own unique characteristics as a human being. One
of the assumptions of this study was that special edu-
cators would view disabled persons from more of an asset
value orientation than would the regular classroom teacher.
A logical extension of this assumption was that the postu-
lated asset value orientation of the special educators
would generalize to favorable progressive-attitudes-toward-
education as well as favorable attitudes toward change
orientation as measured by the indicees of the study.

It has been suggested (Felty, 1965) that the whole
concept of rehabilitation and special education (taken
apart from the economic argument that in the long run edu—
cation and training are cheaper than public support) is a
response to the Hgggg values of a society.

Theory has suggested that frequency and kind of inter-
personal contact are determinants of attitudes. Guttman
and Foa (1951) have shown that attitude intensity is re-
lated to the amount of social contact with the attitude
object. Zetterberg (1963 )observed that attitude inten-
Sity on the favorable-unfavorable continuum is related to
perceived freedom or constraint of social interaction and
Whether this interaction is perceived as rewarding. At-

tempts have been made to test interaction between contact

126

frequency, intensity,and the related contact indices of
enjoyment and avoidance. Several studies were reviewed
which suggested the importance of personal contact in
changing attitudes. Homans (1950) postulated that the
more frequent the contact between persons or groups, the
more favorable the attitudes.

Summary of Hypotheses
Construction

 

The pilot study conducted by Felty (1965) applied
several of the hypotheses of the present study to physi-
cally disabled in San Jose, Costa Rica. These hypotheses
were extended by Friesen (1966) to include attitudes to-
ward education. Mader (1967) altered the hypotheses
direction for purposes of making comparisons between sub-
sets of special educators. The hypotheses in the present
study were further modified to allow for comparisons of
special educators and regular classroom teachers, but with
retention of the basic format used by Mader (1967).

H:H and H;H are related to contact-frequency and
contact-intensity interactions. The hypotheses were de-
rived from considerations by Foa (1950), Guttman and Foa
(1951), and Rosenberg (1960), to the effect that contact
frequency is directly related to attitude intensity re-
gardless of content direction. Contact-frequency inter-
actions took into account the relationship of four contact

variables: (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b)

 

127

enjoyment of the contact, (c) ease of avoidance of

 

 

contact, and (d) frequency per ES-
H-3 through H-5 attempt to test the assumptions con-

cerning asset or compgrative value orientation. H—6

 

postulates a relationship between change orientation and
positive attitudes toward the disabled and high scores on
the progressive education scale. It was felt that high
scores on change orientation would represent departure
from the status qgg and high relationship to new ideas and
concern for the quality of care and equality of treatment
for the disabled.

H:l through H:HH were derived from the assumptions
that persons working in the area of special education and
rehabilitation would have more favorable attitudes toward
disabled persons; would be more asset minded; would have
more progressive attitudes toward education; would be more
change oriented; and would have more contact with mentally
or emotionally handicapped persons.

H:HH was an attempt to compare elementary and
secondary regular classroom teachers on the five major

criterion measures of this study.

Summary of Instrumentation

The major variables of the study may be summarized
as follows: attitudes toward education and physical
disability as they are influenced by values, contact, and

related demographic indices.

128

The Attitudes Toward Education Scale, developed by
Kerlinger, (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961, 1967; Kerlinger and Kaya,
1959) was used to measure both progressive and traditional
attitudes toward education. Relationships between progres-
sive-attitudes-toward education and positive attitudes to-
ward physical disability was also investigated.

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale was
adapted from the attitude scale developed by Yuker g£_gg.
(1960).; The scale was modified so as to make provisions
for respondent scoring. The Likert-type format was re-
tained, but the response categories were reduced from seven
to four.

Both the Kerlinger and Yuker scales were modified
with a Likert-type intensity statement. This statement,
containing four response alternatives, asked the respon-
dent to indicate how strongly (i.e., sure) he felt about
his answer to the content statements of the two scales.

Asset and comparative value orientations were mea-
sured by three sub-scales of the Gordon Survey of Inter-
personal Values (Gordon, 1960). Asset value orientation
toward others was measured by the sub-scale of Benevolence
which Gordon (1963, p. 3) described as "Doing things for
other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortu-
nate, being generous." Comparative value orientation
toward others were measured by Recognition value described

by Gordon (1963, p. 3) as "Doing what is socially correct,

129

following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and
proper, being a conformist," and by the Leadership value
which Gordon (1963, p. 3) defined as "Being in charge of
other people, having authority over others, being in a
position of leadership or power."

Contact with education, preferences for personal
relationships, change orientation, institutional satis-
faction and other demographic characteristics were taken
from the Personal Questionnaire. The Personal Questipn-
naire-HP measured contact with physically handicapped
person on five contact variables: amount, kind, alter—
native to, enjoyment of, and ease of avoidance from con-

tacts with disabled persons.

Summar of Statistical
Procedures

Two frequency programs, FCC I and FCC II (Clark,

 

1964) were used in tabulating frequency distributions for
every variable.

The one- and two-way analysis of variance computer
programs were used for testing hypotheses concerned with
differences between group means. The effect of sex on
attitude scores was held constant by two-way analysis of
variance procedures (Ruble, Paulson, and Rafter, 1966).
Since the samples were not equal in size or in-sex ratio,
when a significant H occurred, an "adjusted mean" and

mean's test was indicated. The procedure used for testing

130

for significance among multiple means is approximately
equal to Duncan's Multiple Means test (Edwards, 1955;
Kramer, 1956, pp. 307-310) up to and including three
treatment means.

Relational and predictive statistics were obtained
by zero-order correlation analyses. The zero-order cor-
relational analysis provided a matrix of simple corre-
lations between all variables for the total samples used
in this study. Tests of significance of the correlation
coefficients from zero were used, with tables entered
(Edwards, 1965, p. 362) for the appropriate degrees of

freedom.

Summary of the Sample

A detailed account of the sampling procedures is
contained in Chapter III. Selection of the sample was
based on geographic considerations of the sample from
Mader's (1967) study. A stratified random sample of
Michigan Public School elementary and secondary teachers
was taken from fifteen counties. A stratified random sam-
ple of 400 teachers was selected by use of the random
number tables in Fisher (1948). The total return of
questionnaires was 310 (78%) with 161 elementary and 149
secondary teachers responding.

Part II: Discussion of the Results and
-—ng}ications of_H§EEERE§I§_Testicg
In Chapter I the purpose of this study was stated as

being an investigation and comparison of the attitudes of

131

special educators and regular classroom teachers toward
physical disability and toward education. The technical,
methodological and theoretical concepts used were develop-
ed by Felty (1965) in his pilot study. Mader (1967) used
the design as have others in the major cross-cultural
study (see Chapter 1) allowing for comparisons of various
groups. The present study used the design to compare
Mader's (1967) study of special educators with regular
teachers.

There was a total of 19 hypotheses which were divided
into four major categories pertaining to: (a) contact fre-
quency, intensity and attitude scores, (b) attitude-value
interactions, (c) change orientation and attitude, and (d)
differences between special educators and regular teachers
on certain variables. Each major category had several hy-
potheses and sub-hypotheses in order to test postulated
relationships between variables and, inferences and pre-
dictions about respondent groups.

Hypotheses Relating to
Contact Frequency and
Iptensity

It was hypothesized in this section that higher con-
tact frequency with disabled persons and/or with education
would lead to greater intensity of attitude irrespective
of whether attitude content was positive or negative,

progressive or traditional.

132

Guttman and Foa (1951), Rosenberg (1960) and Zetter-
berg (1963), suggested that frequency of contact with an
attitude object is directly related to attitude intensity
regardless of the direction of the content.

Analysis of the data in Table 5 indicates that a
significant difference does exist between special educators
and regular teachers with regard to frequency of contact
with the disabled and on intensity of attitude. The null
hypothesis was rejected. Mader (1967) found no signifi-
cant differences in special educator sub-groups on relation-
ships between amount of contact and intensity. Similar
non-significant relationships were reported by Felty (1965)
and Friesen (1966) between various respondent groups.

Interpretation of these results may be accounted
for in terms of sampling procedures. Both Felty (1965)
and Friesen (1966) made comparisons within a different
cultural setting with many occupations represented in the
samples and much smaller N's and less control of demo-
graphic variables of education, income, and age. Mader
(1967) compared sub—sets of special educators with similar
levels of education, income, and frequency of contact with
the disabled. In this study, as indicated by Table 2,
there were no significant differences between special edu-
cators and regular teachers on variables of education,
income, and age. Furthermore, it should be noted that a

much larger N existed for both groups and a significant

133

difference did exist in the relationship between frequency
of contact and intensity supporting the research hy-
pothesis.

VSpecial educators and regular teachers differed
significantly with regard to the relationship between fre-
quency of contact and intensity scores on the progressive
attitudes toward education scale. The significant re-
lationship (Table 6) indicating that special educators
have more progressive attitudes gives support to the
theoretical position taken in Chapter II and suggested by
Jordan (1963).

No significant difference exists between special
educators and regular teachers as effected by frequency of
contact on the intensity of traditional attitudes toward
education (Table 7). The higher TATE mean on intensity
for regular teachers is in the direction hypothesized.

The zero-order correlations between scores indicating amount
of contact with the disabled and intensity scores on mea—
sures of traditional-attitudes-toward-education are pre-
sented in Table 8. The interesting finding from the
analysis of the data is that the only significant zero-
order correlation is between frequency of contact and in-
tensity for the TATE scale for regular teachers.~ This
further suggests that regular teachers have more tradi-
tional attitudes than do special educators. Other corre-
lations though lacking significance at the .05 level are

in the direction of the hypothesis.

134

Homan (1950) and Zetterberg (1963) indicated that
contact p23 Hg'with an attitude object was not sufficient
to result in positive attitudes. They have suggested that
the contact must be accompanied by suitable alternatives
and must be enjoyable. The present study interprets
"alternatives" as volitional contact with the attitude
object.

A comparison of special educators and regular teach-
ers on the frequency of contact with the disabled and the
variables of alternatives, enjoyment, and avoidance was
reported in Table 9. Use of the z' transformation as de-
scribed by Edwards (1965) enables one to test for a signifi-
cant difference between two simple correlations. The only
one of the three variables for which a significant differ-
ence was found was that of "enjoyment." It should also be
noted that special educators attained a positive corre-
lation between contact and enjoyment while regular teachers
had a negative correlation. There was a significant
difference between these two correlations at the .05 level
allowing rejection of the null hypothesis for the enjoy-
ment variable. This result is in agreement with Mader's
(1967) findings, but it appears there is no significant
differences between the groups on alternatives or avoid-
ance. The lack of difference may be that the content of

the items tend to elicit socially desirable responses.

135

With regard to frequency of contact with education,
Table 10 indicates significant differences for educational
"alternatives," educational "enjoyment," and "avoidance"
of contact with handicapped persons. Special educators
differ significantly at the .05 level from regular teach-
ers on the relationship between amount of contact with
education and the three variables in a positive direction,
i.e., there is a higher correlation between educational
contact and (a) alternatives, (b) enjoyment, and (c)
avoidance. The highest level of correlation in both
Tables 9 and 10 was between contact and enjoyment by the
special educators. According to Mader (1967) enjoyment was
also the most significant of the combined variables in
shaping positive attitudes toward the handicapped.
Hypotheses Related to
Attitude and Value
Interactions

Personal values have been found to relate to atti-
tudes toward a social object. Wright (1960) postulates
that people view the handicapped from either an asset or
a comparative orientation. Rosenberg (1960) pointed that
the more the belief content of an attitude is instrumental
to value maintenance, the more favorable will be the
evaluation of the object of the attitude. Values are
also believed to be determinants of attitudes. An attempt
has been made to determine the relationship between values

and attitudes by means of several hypotheses.

136

The research hypothesis stated that those who score
high in need for power and control over others (i.e.,
comparative) would tend to have unfavorable attitudes
toward the disabled. This hypothesis was not confirmed
by Mader (1967) nor was the null hypothesis of the pre-
sent study disconfirmed. The lack of significance with
regard to this particular use of Gordon's "leadership"
value scale to operationalize the "comparative" approach
may be the consequence of items that do not discriminate.

A significant difference was reported in Tables 12
and 13 between special educators and regular teachers on
the items of "leadership" and measures of progressive and
traditional education. Friesen (1966) reports similar re-
sults and Mader (1967) noted that special educators who
are in classroom situations scored higher on the tradi-
tional education scale while the "itinerant" special edu-
cation personnel scored high on the progressive education
scale. The present findings indicate that the total
special educators group scored higher on the progressive
education scale than did the regular classroom teachers.
0n the traditional education scale there was a significant
difference with regular teachers scoring higher than the
Special educators.~ These findings support the general
theoretical framework upon which the hypotheses were based.

When special educators and regular teachers were

compared on need for recognition and acceptance of the

137

physically disabled there were no significant differences.
The Recognition value includes achievement orientation,
the tendency to attract favorable attention, and to re-
ceive admiration from others. Recognition was considered
as related to comparative orientation as Opposed to asset
orientation measured by the Benevolence value.

On both progressive and traditional attitude scales
as related to measures of need for recognition there were
significant differences as indicated in Tables 15 and 16.
It is interesting to note that on the progressive atti-
tude scales the mean scores for special educators were
higher and on the traditional attitudes toward education
scales regular teachers mean scores were higher. Mader
(1967) found no significant differences among the subsets
of Special educators on the hypotheses dealing with recog-
nition and the ATDP, TATE, or PATE scales. It would ap-
pear that the range of values for Special educators as a
group are more homogenous and thus when compared to regu-
lar teachers a Significant difference was obtained.

The Benevolence value refers to the need to help
others, and to be generous. There were several hypotheses
that attempted to determine the relationship between
special educators and regular teachers on the need to
help others and to be generous. These hypotheses were
stated in terms of an asset-value orientation rather than

a comparative-value orientation.

138

Table 17 indicates that the two groups do not differ
on attitudes toward disabled persons and Benevolence.
However, inspection of the correlation matrix does indi-
cate that special educators mean scores were higher and
would be in the direction of the theoretical framework
discussed in Chapter II.

Significant differences were found between the
groups on the Benevolence value and both traditional and
progressive attitudes toward education as reported in
Tables 18 and 19. A similar pattern of findings was in-
dicated by Kreider (1967) while Mader (1967) found no
significant differences between the sub-groups of special
educators. According to Kreider (1967, p. 213) it could
be that in certain cultures, values have a long history
of being viewed in traditional ways. Examination of the
data again indicates that special educators have higher
scores on progressive attitudes and Benevolence while
regular teachers are high on traditional attitude scores,
but lower on Benevolence scores.

Mader (1967) found that no significant sex differ-
ences existed on the ATDP scale and the PATE scale. He
did find Significance on PATE when the sub-sets of Special
educators were compared. Mader concluded that scores on
progressive and traditional measures of education are
related to Specific types of special educators rather than

to sex or to Special educators generally.

139

Inspection of Table 20 indicates that no signifi-
cant differences were found between special educators and
regular teachers on Benevolence and ATDP scores when sex
was held constant, but there were significant differences
on the PATE scores. It is further revealed that a
significant difference does exist between groups on
Benevolence when sex was not held constant. The con-
clusion can be drawn that the sex variable operates
differently for special educators and regular teachers
with regard to Benevolence.

Chan e Variables as Related
t6"A%titude Scores

Felty (1965) suggested that attitudes toward change
might have a salient relationship to attitudes toward the
disabled and toward education and recommended change
orientation variables be included in the study. The hy-
potheses postulated a relationship between change orien-
tation and positive attitudes toward the disabled and high
scores on the progressive education scale. It was felt
that high scores on change orientation would represent
departure from the statusgquo and high relationship to new
ideas and concern for the quality of care and equality of
treatment for the disabled. The assumption was that
special educators would score higher on change orientation
and dissatisfaction with the status quo than regular teach-

ers .

140

Tables 21 and 22 indicate that no significant differ-
ences exist between special educators and regular teachers
on ATDP and TATE scores as related to the change orien-
tation variables of health, child rearing, and birth con-
trol practices. It can be Observed that a positive di-
rection existed in terms of the hypotheses for some vari-
ables. However, the only significant difference was on
child rearing practices and this finding was opposite to
that postulated.

There has been little support for the hypothesized
relationship between change orientation and attitudes to-
ward the physically disabled or toward education. Kreider
(1967) suggested that the inconsistency and lack of
significant results in his study might be the difficulty
in achieving concept equivalence or of conflicting loyali-
ties between traditional and progressive attitudes. Mader
(1967) found no significant differences on the change
variables as related to attitude scales. The combined
findings, including the present research, suggest that if
the hypothesized relationship exists, then some different
techniques should be devised to ascertain that relation-

ship.

141

Hypotheses Related to Charac-
teristics of Those Working
Directly with the Physically
Disabled

 

 

It was hypothesized that special educators working
directly with disabled perSons would have a lower mean
attitude-toward-disabled-persons score than would regu—
lar classroom teachers. A lower score on the ATDP scale
is an indication of more favorable attitudes. Zetterberg
(1963) indicated that high frequency of contact with the
handicapped is associated with positive attitude if (a)
the interaction could easily be avoided, and (b) there
were other rewarding activities in which to engage.

Mader (1967) found no differences between sub-sets of
special educators on mean scores on the ATDP scale and
indicated the results were not surprising as the entire
sample were those who voluntarily relate to the handicapped
and because of their qualifications could have alternatives
to such interaction with the handicapped.

No significant results are reported in Table 25 where
Special educators and regular teachers were compared on
mean scores of the ATDP scale. It can also be observed
that the group means are opposite the hypothesized
direction.‘

Friesen (1966) and Kreider (1967) have discussed
the adequacy of the ATDP scale used in this study. They

have suggested that the instrument under question may be

142

measuring a limited area of the attitude universe related
to the disabled. Most items may be reflecting only
stereotyped statements about disabled persons, so that a
respondent with a direct and prolonged personal contact
might appear less accepting or no different on a "stereo-
type" level than those whose relationships are less fre-
quent and perhaps more superficial. Further discussion
in this regard will be made in the following section.

It was hypothesized that the special educators
group would have a higher mean score than regular teach—
ers in respect to the Benevolence value and lower mean
scores in respect to the Recognition and Leadership
values.

Mader (1967) pointed out that one of the motivating
factors for entry into the broad area of special education
is a desire to help others particularly those viewed as
being less fortunate. Although Mader (1967) found no
differences between sub-sets of special educators he indi—
cated that upon comparing their total mean scores with
those reported by Gordon (1963) only one of Gordon's 29
adult groups ranked higher (i.e., more benevolent) than
Special educators.

The results of testing the hypotheses are indicated
in Table 26 where no Significant differences were found
between Special educators and regular teachers on Benevo-

lence, Recognition, or Leadership. The implications are

143

clear that the hypothesized relationship of Special edu-
cators being more benevolent and less concerned with
recognition and leadership are not supported. The re-
sults suggest there are no differences between Special
educators and regular teachers in desire to be looked up
to, admired (Recognition), or being in charge of other
peOple and being in a position of power (Leadership).

It was postulated that Special educators would
have more progressive attitudes toward education than regu-
lar teachers. Table 27 compares special educators with
regular teachers on progressive and traditional attitudes
toward education. The results indicate significant differ-
ences: with special educators reflecting higher scores on
progressive attitudes toward education and regular teachers
being higher on traditional attitudes toward education.
These findings further support Kerlinger's (1967) position
of a distinct dicotomization of progressive and traditional
education within our culture.

Mader (1967) found that special educators who were
limited to the c1assroOm were more traditional in their
attitudes than were the itinerant special educators. His
observation was that in daily instruction the teacher of
the educable mentally handicapped is disposed to use a
traditional educational approach to learning. Since the
task of itinerant Special educators is a direct service

to children, plus consultation to regular and special

144

educators, their perception, according to Mader, of the
adequacy of existing programs may be considered negative.
The negativism of itinerant personnel may be expressed as
anti-traditional or pro-progressive as it relates to
existing education programs.

The interesting finding is that in Mader's (1967)
study approximately 40 per cent of his sample were teach—
ers of the educable mentally handicapped, and yet, the re-
sults of the comparison (Table 27) reveals that special
educators have more progressive and less traditional atti-
tudes toward education than do regular teachers.

It was hypothesized that special educators would
have higher mean scores on the following change orien-
tation variables: (a) health practices, (b) child rearing
practices, and (c) birth control practices.

There was a significant difference found between
special educators and regular teachers, as reported in
Table 28, and it was in the hypothesized direction for
both health and child rearing practices. No significant
difference was evident between the groups for birth con-
trol practices.

There are_some significant differences between the
groups on mean scores for change variables, but there ap-
pears to be a limited relationship to attitudes as was

noted in testing H-6 (Tables 21 and 22).

145

In a comparison of regular teachers and special edu-
cators it seemed reasonable to assume that a great number
of contacts with the physically handicapped would yield
Similar numbers of contacts with the retarded and emotion-
ally disturbed. It was hypothesized that mean scores
would differ significantly for Special educators and regu-
lar teachers on frequency of contact with the mentally
retarded and emotionally disturbed. Results of testing
this hypothesis are contained in Table 29 indicating
Significant differences do exist that clearly support the
hypothesis.

A final hypothesis was that no differences would
exist between regular elementary and secondary teachers on
five of the major criterion variables: (a) ATDP, (b) PATE,
(c) TATE, (d) Benevolence, and (e) Leadership.

An analysis of the results in Table 30 indicates that
no significant differences exist between regular elementary
and secondary classroom teachers on attitudes toward dis—
abled persons or on progressive and traditional attitudes
toward education. While the null hypothesis cannot be
rejected for the attitude scales, it can be rejected for
significant differences on Benevolence and Leadership.

Elementary teachers reflect higher scores on Benevo-
lence which is not surprising in terms of cultural ex-
pectations for this group. It is further noted and of
interest that secondary teachers were Significantly higher

on the comparative value of Leadership.

146

Summary of Hypothesis
Testing

Table 31 gives a summary of the acceptance or re-
jection of each statistical null hypothesis and the
directionality of the research hypotheses. There was
a significant relationship between contact frequency and
intensity on the ATDP scale and the PATE scale. This data
lends support to the theory that contact frequency with
disabled persons is related to attitude intensity regard-
less of content direction. Frequency of contact with
education reflected a relationship with intensity of pro—
gressive attitudes, but not with traditional attitudes
toward education.

The theoretical position of Homans (1954) and Zetter-
berg (1963) stressing the volitional nature and avoidance
of contact as related to attitudes toward the disabled
were not supported in this study. Enjoyment of contact
was significantly related to frequency of contact with the
disabled and special educators reflected the higher corre—
lation.

Contact frequency with education and the relationship
with alternatives, enjoyment and avoidance were all signifi-
cantly different between the groups of Special educators
and regular teachers. There was theoretical support for
the effects of the volitional nature, enjoyment, and

avoidance of contact on attitudes toward education.

147

While the hypothesis relating Leadership and atti-
tudes toward disabled persons for Special educators and
regular teachers could not be rejected, it should be noted
that the mean score for Leadership was in the opposite
direction of the research hypothesis. There were signifi-
cant differences between the groups in the relationship of
Leadership to both progressive and traditional attitudes
toward education. Contrary to the asset-comparative
orientation Special educators reflected higher Leadership
values which have been judged to represent a comparative
attitude.

Recognition value and attitudes toward physically
disabled persons were not found to be significantly differ-
ent for special educators and regular teachers. A signifi-
cant relationship was found as well as disconfirmation of
the statistical null hypothesis between groups for pro-
gressive and traditional attitudes toward education when
related to Recognition. Recognition mean scores were
higher for Special educators and opposite the hypothesized
theoretical direction.

No Significant difference was evident between groups
on the ATDP scale as related to Benevolence. However, a
similar pattern emerged as on Leadership and Recognition
where progressive and traditional attitudes toward edu-
cation were measured. There were Significant differences

between Special educators and regular teachers where the

148

interaction of Benevolence on PATE and TATE scores was
compared. The postulated higher level of Benevolence for
Special educators has only limited support by the posi-
tive direction of the mean scores.

There was a lack of significant findings on the
change orientation variables as they relate to attitudes
toward physical disability and toward education. In-
consistency in directionality of the hypothesized relation—
ship makes it difficult to interpret and raises questions
as to the instrumentation and methodology used to deter-
mine the relationship.

Table 31 also indicates that no significant differ-
ences existed between special educators and regular teach-
ers on mean scores of ATDP scale, Benevolence, Leadership,
and Recognition. There were significant mean differences
between the groups on progressive and traditional attitudes
toward education with special educators reflecting more
progressive attitudes. Mean differences were tested for
the change orientation variables and significant differ-
ences were evident for health and child rearing practices,
but not for birth control practices. The null hypothesis
was disconfirmed concerning differences in frequency of
contact with the mentally retarded and emotionally dis-
turbed persons.

The comparison of the regular elementary and

secondary teachers in the final hypothesis revealed no

149

significant differences exist on attitudes toward dis-
abled persons or toward education. An interesting and
Significant difference on the asset-comparative value
orientation indicates that elementary teachers are more
asset oriented (Benevolent) and secondary teachers more

comparative in their orientation (Leadership).

ngt III: Recommendations

 

Recommendations Relating
to the Instruments

The instruments used in making a comparison be-
tween special educators and regular teachers on attitudes
toward physical disability and toward education of neces-
sity were the same as those used by Mader (1967) in his
attitude study of special educators. Recommendations
made by Mader (1967) have pertinence to the present study
but could not be incorporated and still maintain the neces-
sary equivalence for a comparison of the data.

,It was suggested by Mader (1967) that the ATDP scale
would be more differentiating if it were modified by using
the expanded response form offered by the sematic differ-
ential. A further recommendation with regard to the
Surveygof Inteppersonal Values (Gordon, 1960) was that
Recognition and Leadership were not equal measures of a
segment of the value domain and that Leadership value
alone could Serve as a measure of the comparative value

orientation.

150

Kreider (1967) indicated that one of the probable
reasons for not obtaining Guttman-type scales is related
to the complexity of attitude composition. It can be
assumed that attitudes are multidimensional and scale
and intensity analysis must be designed to take this
into account. Computer programs of the Guttman-type that
take into consideration both uni- and multi-dimensional
analysis are not yet available at Michigan State Uni—
versity. It is possible that the attitude instruments
used in this study may be measuring less than the actual
attitude universe related to the physically handicapped
or to education.

It has been recommended by Friesen (1966) and
Kreider (1967) that the model for the selection and scal-
ing of attitude within the framework of a component ap-
proach as develOped by Guttman (1959, 1961) would be use-
ful for further study. This model, known as "facet theory"
is discussed in greater detail and its implications for
the study of attitudes by Friesen (1966). It is believed
that such procedures would solve some problems relating
to determination of attitude content, sampling of items,
and length of scales.

Recommendations Regardicg
Samplinngrocedures
Mader (1967) considered the sample of Special edu-

cators to be adequate and representative of the groups of

151

Special educators currently employed in the state of
Michigan. The sample of regular classroom teachers
selected for this study were taken from Similar geo-
graphic areas of Michigan and were selected by means of
random number tables (see Chapter III) giving a strati-
fied random sample.

The matter of obtaining randomness of sampling is
of extreme importance and one of the more difficult tasks
of the present study. It is recommended that personal
contact, timing of the meeting with those selected, ade-
quate explanation of the purpose of the study and follow-
up are essentials in obtaining a sufficient return of
questionnaires for survey research.

Recommendations Regarding
Statistical Anagysis

Mader (1967) used and recommended the two-way analy-
sis of variance design that would allow for analysis of
interaction of certain variables. The recommendation was
followed in the present study.

It is recommended that the Guttman—Lingoes's MSA—I
computer program be used in subsequent studies. This pro-
cedure has been previously discussed, and it was indi-
cated that MSA-I allows for multi-dimensional and multi-
uni-dimensional data analyses.

It is suggested by Felty (1965) that factor analysis

also appears to be of great value in determining predictor

152

variables for subsequent multiple regression analyses.
This would possibly lead to a reduction of predictor
variables to a more realistic size. This method could
reduce the matrix of inter-correlations among variables
to a minimum number of psychological dimensions (traits,
factors) which will account for the diversity of re-
sponses and a reasonable amount of the total variance.

Recommendations Relating to
the Findings of the Study

 

 

One of the major realizations that became evident
as the findings of the present study unfolded was that
continuous, multiple experimentation is more typical of
science than once-and-for-all definitive experiments.

It is recommended that the present research needs
replication and cross-validation under still further
conditions before the results can become an established
part of science or theoretically interpreted with confi-
dence.

It is recommended that further exploration be made
with regard to the relationship between value orientation
and attitudes toward disabled persons as no significant
differences were found between Special educators and
regular teachers. The present research gives limited
support to the asset-comparative value orientation. It
also casts considerable doubt on the conclusion that
special educators are more benevolent than regular teach-

ers o

153

One of the more provocative findings in the pre—
sent study has to do with H;§ and H;HH. Table 31 readily
reveals that no Significant differences were evident be-
tween special educators and regular teachers on Benevo-
lence and Leadership. However, when regular teachers
were stratified into elementary and secondary groups for
comparisons, there were significant differences on both
value scales.

It is suggested that further differentiation of
Special educators and regular classroom teachers could be
made. The results of the present study indicate that both
groups are diverse in nature and interests. These di-
versities may have been influential in the failure to re-
ject Several statistical hypotheses. Further "compari-
sons" within and between the two groups of the study on
designated variables as well as further investigation of
the "relationships" between variables (i.e., contact
frequency and intensity) is necessary if the attitude-
contact-knowledge-value matrix is to be fully understood.

While the following observations do not necessarily

follow from the empirical data they are the impressions

of the .esearcher.

Véiere was no significant difference between special
educators and regular classroom teachers in regard to atti-
tudes toward disabled persons, yet differences did exist

in attitudes toward education! thus it is suggested that

154

attitudes may be Similar as a result of the personalized
attitude object.

The question has been raised as to the adequacy of
the ATDP scale, if,however, the acceptance of no differ-
ence is true, then the results have positive implications
and support for more frequent integration of physically
handicapped children into regular classes at the earliest
elementary levels.

The lack of significant differences between the groups
on attitudes toward the physically disabled could have im-
portant implications in teacher training programs. An
interesting study of the attitudes of student teachers
(i.e., those expressing an interest in special education and
those who prefer regular teaching) may contribute to a better
understanding of the findings of the present study.

A final observation would be that a study of the
attitudes of the physically handicapped persons toward
Special educators and regular teachers would assist in
the interpretation of the similarity of educators atti-

tudes toward disability.

REFERENCES
Adams, Don. Education and the wealth of nations. Phi
Delta Kappan, 1965, 47, 169—174.

Allport, F. H. Theories of perception and the concept of
structure. New York: Wiley, 1955.

 

Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. Garden City,
N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, Doubleday and Com-
pany, Inc., 1958.

Almond, G., & Coleman, J. S. (Eds.).- The politics of the
developing areas. Princeton University Press, 1965.

Anderson, L. R., & Fishlein, M. Prediction of attitude
from the number, strength, and evaluative aspects of
belief about the attitude object. A comparison of
summation and conguity theories. J. Of Personalicy
and Social Psychology, 2(3), 437-443.

Anderson, Sara E. The changes in attitudes of prospective.
teachers toward education and teaching in secondary
schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana
University, 1964.

Arnholter, E. G. Attitudes toward the disabled. Rehab.
Counsel. Bull., March, 1963, 6(1),26-30.

Baldwin, W. D.' The social position of the educable mentally
retarded child in the regular grades in the public
schools. Except. Child., 1958, 25, 106-108.

 

Barker, R. G., & Wright, B. A.- Thc midwest and'its children°
Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Co., 1955.

Barker, R. G., Wright, B. A., Meyerson, L., & Gonick, M. R._
Adjustment to_pHysical handicap and illness. New
YOrk: Social Science Research Council, 1953.

Barker, R. G. The social psychology of-physical disability.
J. of Soc. Issues, 1948, 4(4), 28-38.

155

156

Baron, R. M. A cognitive model of attitude change. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, New York University,
1963.

Barry, R., & Wolf, B. An epitaph for vocationalyguidance,
Teachers College, Columbia University, 1962.

Beach, D. N., 111. Dissonance as a factor in planned
change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Cincinnati, 1963.

Becker, H. Through values to social interpretation. Durham,
North Carolina: Duke Univ. Press., 1950, Esp. Ch. 1,
3'92 6

 

Belinkoff, Cornelia. Community attitudes toward mental
retardation. Amer. J. Ment. Defic., 1961, 221.

Bem, D. J. An experimental analysis of beliefs and atti--
tudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Michigan, 1964.

Bennis, G., Beene, K. D., & Chin, R. (Eds.) The_planning of
change. New York: Holt, Rinehart-and Winston, 1961.

 

Benoit, R. B. An investigation Of changes in knowledge and
attitudes of counselor-trainees during the course of
an NDEA Guidance Institute and their relation to
counseling competence. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of California, 1964.

Berg, 1. A. Cultural trends and the task of psychology.
American Psychologist. The American Psychological
Association, March, 1965, 20(3).

Berg, R. H. Mothers' attitudes on child bearing and family
life compared for achieving and underachieving elemen-
tary school children. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Southern California, 1963.

Bernardo, R. A. Cultural background of students and cooper—
ating teachers as related to attitudes toward chil-
dren, problems of student teaching, and achievement
of student teaching. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1962.

Berreman, J. Some implications of research in the social
psychology of physical disability. Except. Child.,
May, 1954. 20. 347-350. 356-357.

157

Berwald, Helen D. Attitudes toward women college teachers
in institutions of higher education accredited by
the North Central Association (Volumes I and II).
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 1962.

Better, M. An analysis of attitude modifications toward
educational assumptions by prospective secondary
teachers in a teacher training program. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963.

Block, J. R., & Yuker, H. E. Correlates of an intellectual
orientation among college students. Proceedings of
the 73rd Annual Convention of the American Physio-
logical Association, 1965.

Bloom, W. Attitudes of mentally retarded students identi-
fied by education level, ethnic group, sex, and socio-
economic class. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,.
University of Texas, 1964.

Blumenfeld, W. S. The Image of the Physician: A cross—
sectional study of attitudes and their correlates.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University,
1963.

Bradt, Margit I. Attitudes of university students toward V”
exceptional children and special education.‘ Except.
Child.,April,1957, 23, 387.

Brim, B. J. Changes in teacher education students. Unpub—
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver,
1964.

Brown, M. D. A comparative study of attitudes and opinions
among selected groups in two Michigan cities with
authoritative judgments concerning occupational and
technical education in community colleges. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1964.

(Darlson, E. R. Attitude change through modification of
attitude structure. J. Abn. and Soc. Psych., 1956,
52, 256-261.

Cairtwright, D. Some principles of mass persuasion. Human
Relations, 1949, 2, 253-268. “ '

Ceenters & Centers. Peer group attitudes toward the amputee V”
child. J. Soc. Psychol., 1963, 61, 127-132.

(kassna, W. C., Jr. The nature and determinants of attitudes
toward education and toward physically disabled persons
in Japan. Unpublished doctoral.dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1967.

158

Chambers, J. A. A study of attitudes and feelings toward
windowless classrooms. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Tennessee, 1963.

Chesler, M. A.- Ethnocentrism and attitudes toward the. o/’
physically disabled. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 1965.

 

Christiansen, B. Attitudes toward foreign affairs as a
function ofypersOnality. Oslo University Press,
Oslo, 1959.

Clark, J. Manual of computer programs, Research Services,
Department of Communications, Michigan.State Uni-
versity, 1964, (mimeo.).

Classon, M. E. A correlation study of elementary school
teachers' attitudes toward children and teaching and.
toward supervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Colorado State College, 1963.

Clelond, C. 0., & Chambers, W. Experimental modification of
attitudes as a function of an institutional tour.
Amer. J. Ment. Defic., 1959, 53, 124-130.

Cohen, J. 8.1 Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally re-
tarded individuals. Amer. J.-Ment. Defic.,.67(5).
March, 1963, 706-713. ’—

Connor, G. An educator looks at attitudes. New Outlook
for the Blind, May, 1963, 57, 153-156.

Costello, P. M. The attitudes of parents of mentally re-
tarded children toward counseling they~have received
(Research Study No. l). Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Colorado State College, 1963.

Cowen, E. L., Underberg, R. P., & Verilla, R. T.- The
development and structure of an attitude to blindness
scale. J. of Soc. ng., 1958, 48, 297-304.

Crowell, T. R., Jr. A comparative study of teacher person-
alities, attitudes, and values in relation to student
nonpromotion in the elementary schools of Rockford,
Illinois (Research Study No. 1). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Colorado State College, 1964.

Cruickshank, W. M. (Ed.) Psychology of exceptional children
andyyouth. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: PrenticeaHall,
1955.

Cruickshank, W. M. (Ed.) Ps cholo of exce tional children
and youth. (2nd ed.) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1963. Pp,311-368.

 

 

159

Cutright, P. National political development. American
Soc. Rev., April, 1963, 28(2).

 

Davis, E. E. Attitude change: A review and bibliography
of selected research. UNESCO, No. 19, 1964.

Davis, K. Population. Scientific American, 209(3),
September, 1963, 63-71.

Dean, J. T. An analysis of attitudes toward education,
theological orientations, interpersonnel values, and
educational experience. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1967.

Dean, P., & Eichlon, R. L. The cross-sectional field sur-
vey in Doby. An Introduction to Social Research.
Harrisburg, Pa.: The Stackpole Co., 1954.

199—224.

DeJonge, J. J., & Sim, F. M. Use of factor analysis programs
for the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer
Laboratory for Social Science Research, Technical Re-
port, 2, January 20, 1964.

Dembo, T., Leviton, C. R., & Wright, Beatrice A. Adjustment
to misfortune--a problem of sociol-psychological re-
habilitation. Artificial Limbs, 1956, 3, 4-62.

 

Dickie, R. F. An investigation of differential attitudes
toward the physically disabled, blind persons, and
attitudes toward education and their determinants
among various occupational groups in Kansas. Unpub--
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni--
versity, 1967.

Dickstein, Joan & Dripps, Elaine. An analysis of attitudes P”
of acceptance-rejection towards exceptional children.
Master of education thesis, Boston University, 1958.

Diekema, A. J.~ Level of occupational aSpiration, perform—
ance in college, and facilitation: A preliminary test
of certain postulates concerning the relationship be-
tween attitudes and bel. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1965.

.Dotson, L. An empirical study of attitude component theory.
Public Opin. Q., 1963, 26(1), Spring, 64-76.

IJuijker, H. C. J. Comparative research in social science
with special reference to attitude research. Inter-
national Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7, 4.

160

Edmonson, M. S. Los manitos, a‘study of institutional
values. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, 1957.

Edwards, A. L. Experimental design incpsychological research.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.

Edwards, L. Techniques of attitude scale construction.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1957.

Epperman, D. C., & Schmuk, R. A. The uses of social
psychology in comparative education. Comp. Educ.
Rev., February, 1963, 182-190.

 

Ernatt, R. A survey of pupils' attitudes toward intergrade
ability grouping for reading instruction. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University, 1963.

Felty, F. E. The measurement of attitudes toward disability
in San Jose, Costa Rica. A scale approach to the
problem of concept equivalence. Paper read at the
Ninth Interamerican Congress of Psychology, Miami,
Florida, December, 1964.

Felty, F. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa
Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1965.

Fenderson, D. A. Attitudes toward the handicapped. I/’
Minnesota J. Educ., February, 1964, 44, 27 & 33.

Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston,
Illinois: Row Peterson and Co., 1957.

Fisher, Anita H. Factors identified with positiVe and nega-
tive attitudes toward physical education. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern Cali-
fornia, 1964.

Fisher, R. A., & Yates, F. Statistical tables fcr biologi--
cal, agricultural and medical research. (3rd ed.)
Edinburg: Oliver & Boyd, 1948.

Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research.
Int. J. of Opin. and Attitude Research, 1950, 4, 192-
208.

Foa, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of
interpersonal relations. Human Relations, August,
1958, 11, 229-238.

 

161

Foa, U. G. Convergences in the analysis of the structure
of interpersonal behavior."Psych.'Rev., 1961, 68(5),
341-353.

Foa, U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of communali-
ties. Behavioral Science, July, 1963, 8(3), 220-226.

Force, D. G. Social status of physically handicapped V/*
children. Except. Child” December, 1956, 23(3).

Foster, R. L.- A multi-phase approach into community atti-
tudes toward education in the Reed School District in
Marin County, California. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of California, 1964.

Frank, W. W. An exploratory study of attitudes and per-
ceptions toward change among AID technical assistance
program participants. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1965.

Frazer, D. W. A study of parental attitudes toward the
special education class for the mentally gifted sixth
grade students in Atchison, Kansas. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska Teacher's
College, 1963.

Freeze, C. R. A study of openness as a factor of change in
student teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Alabama, 1963.

Friesen, E. W. Nature and determinants of attitudes toward
education and toward physically disabled persons in
Colombia, Peru, and the United States. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1966.

Furno, O. F., & Costello, M. H. Activities and attitudes of
physically handicapped special education graduates.
Except. Child., October, 1963, 85-91.

Glasner, D. M. Factor analytic investigations of the com-
ponents of attitude structure. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Purdue University, 1963.

Goocher, B. E. Changes in descriptive word meanings as a.
function of change in attitudes and experience. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois
University, 1963.

Goode, W. J., & Hatt, P. K. Methods in social research.
New York: McGraw-Hilleook Co., Inc., 1952.

 

162

Goodman, N., Dornbusch, S. M., Richardson, S. A., & Hortorf,
A. H. Varient reactions to physical disabilities.
Amr. Sociol. Rev., 1963.

Gorden, R. L. Interaction between attitude and definition
of the situation in expression of Opinion. Amr. Sociol.
Rev., 1952, 17, 50-55.

Gordon, L. V. Manual for survey of interpersonal values.
Chicago, 1 no 8: c ence RESearch Associates,
Inc., No. 7-2761, 1960.

 

Gordon, L. V. Hesearch briefs on survey of_interpersonal
values. Chicago, Illinois: Science Research Associates,
Inc., 1963, 28.

Gorfein, D. S. Phenomenal regression and the need for con-.
trol groups in attitude change studies.
Reports, 1962, 1, 23-24.

Psychological

Gowman, A. G. The war blind in American social structure.
Amer. Found. for the Blind, New York, 1957.

Green, B. F. Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey (Ed.)
Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1, Theory and
metho . ead ng, assachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1954.

Greenberg, M. S. The effect of social support for one's
beliefs on two techniques of attitude change. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston,
1963.

Greenwald, H. J.- The involvement-discrepancy controversy in
Opinion change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University, 1964.

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. Nequork: McGraw-
Hill, 1954.

Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for intensity and scale
analysis. Educ. and Psych.Meas., 1947, 7, 247-280.

Guttman, L., & Suchman, E. A. Intensity and a zero-point
for6attitude analysis. Amer. Soc. Rev., 1947, 12,
57- 7-

Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure-
ment. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and
prediction. Princeton University Press, 1950.

Guttman, L., Stouffer, S. A., & et a1. Measurement and
prediction. Princeton UniversIty ress, 1950.

163

Guttman, L., & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an inter-
group attitude. Publ. Opin. Q., Spring, 1951, 43-53.

Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social
research. Publ. Opin. Q., Winter, 1954, 18(4),
395-u0u o

Guttman, L. The principal components of scalable atti-
tudes. In P. F. Lazersfeld (Ed. ), Mathematical
thinking in the Social sciences. New YOrk: The
Free Press, 1954:

 

Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs
and action. Amer. Soc. Rev., 1959, 24, 318-328.

Haberman, M. A study of changes in pre-service students
expressed perceptions regarding the elementary class-
room teachers out-of—class professional responsi-
bilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University, 1962.

Hadwiger, K. E. The effect of expectancy on attitude
change in communication. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Oklahoma, 1964.

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.

Hafterson, J. M. The "CUT" program for Guttman scalogram
analysis. Computer Center, Michigan State University,
1965, (mimeo-undocumented).

Hagen, E. E. On the theory of social change. Homewood,
Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1962..

Haltzman, W. H. The measurement of attitudes toward the
Negro in the South. J. Soc. Psych., 1958, 48, 305-317.

Hamilton, N. K.- Attitudes toward special education for v//,
gifted children. J. Except. Child., 1960, 27,
1147-163 0

Hand, Mary C. Teacher characteristics associated with
changed attitudes and performance.in the teaching of
reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Pennsylvania State University, 1964.

Handel, A. F.‘ Community attitudes and adjustment to dis-
ability. Outlook for the Blind, 1960.

164

Hanks, J. R., & Hanks, L. M., Jr. The physically handi-
capped in certain non-occidental societies. J. of
Soc. Issues, 1948, 4. "“'

Hardaway, C. 8., Beymer, C. L., & Engbretson, W. E. A
study of attitudinal changes of teachers and pupils
toward educational television and an analysis of
attitudes of various groups toward educational
television. Office of Research and Testing, Indiana
State College, Terre Haute, Indiana, June, 1963,
Project 988.

Haring, N. G., Stern, G. G. & Cruickshank, W. M. Attitude
of educators toward cgceptional children. New York:
Syracuse University Press, 1958.

Harper, Mary 8. Changes in concepts of mental health,
mental illness, and perceptions of interpersonal
relationships as a result of patient, family and
member Of family-friend system participation in
conjoint family therapy in a hospital. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University, 1963.

Hays, W. L. Statistics forgpsychologists. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965.

Heater, W. H. Attitudes of ministers toward mental retar-
dation and toward education: Their nature and determi-
nants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1967.

Heider, F. The psychology of ipterpersonal relations. New
York: Wiley and Sons, 1958.

Hentig, Haus von. Physical disability, mental conflict and
social crisis. J. Social Issues, Fall, 1948, 4(4),
21-270

Hess, E. H. Social insurance, disability benefits and
rehabilitation. In Disabilitypreventiop-rehabili-
tation. Proceedings of the-Ninth World Congress of
the International Society for Rehabilitation of the
Disabled, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1963. International
Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled, 219 East
44th Street, New York.

Hobbs, D. J. Value and attitude prediction of differential
farm management ability. Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Iowa State University of Science and
Technology, 1963.

165

Hodgson, F. M.~ Special education--facts and attitudes. v”
Except. Child., January, 1964, 20, 196—201.

Hoke, G. A. A comparative study of the comprehensive
secondary school in England and the U. S. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1965.

Homans, G. C.‘ The human group. New York: Harcourt Brace
and World, 1950.

Householder, W. A. An evaluation of work experience pro-
grams as an element of agriculture education in a
Panamanian school of agriculture. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
19 5.

Howard, D. H. The American Negro's dilemma: Attitudes of
Negro professionals toward competition with white.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana Uni-
versity, 1963.

Hulon, H. E. Liberal-conservative attitudes of public
school personnel in North Carolina. Unpublished.
doctoral dissertation, The University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1963.

Hurst, Jean M. An exploratory study of change in students
expressed attitudes toward professional responsibility
in the pro-service program of Teachers College,
Columbia University. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Columbia University, 1963.

Hyman, H. Surveyydesign and analysis. Glencoe, Illinois:
Free Press, 1955.

Jacobson, E., Humata, H., & Gullahorn, J. E. Cross-cultural
contributions to attitude research. Publ. Opin. Q.,
Summer, 1960, 24(2), 205-223.

Jacobson, E., & Schachter, S. Cross national research:
A case study. J. of Social Issues, 1954, 10(4).

James, E., III. Occupational choice and attitude change:
The effect of the decision to be a school teacher on
self-expectation and school teacher stereotype.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Virginia, 1963..

166

Jarnagin, R. A. Farmer attitudes toward the cooperative;
extension service in Illinois: A basis for communi-
cation strategy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1964.

Jones, R. L., & Gottfried, M. W. The prestige of special
education teaching. Except. Child., March, 1966,
32, 7.

Jordan. J. E. The Guatemala research and training center
in rehabilitation and special education. Selected
convention papers, 40th Annual Convention. Washing-
ton, D. C.: The Council for Exceptional Children,
NEA, 1962A.

Jordan, J. E. The university looks at rehabilitation: An
international perspective. J. of the Mich. Med.
Soc., 19628, 61, 620.

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; at the second International Seminar on
Special Education, Nyborg, Denmark, 1963A.

Jordan, J. E. Special education in Latin America. World
horizons in Special education. Proceedings of 1963,
Summer lecture series, College of Education, Michigan
State University, 19638.

Jordan, J. E. Revista Mexicana de Psicologia. La
rehabiliticion y educacion especial en La America
Latina. February, 1964A.

 

Jordan, J. E. Problems and promises of education in Latin
America. Special education in Latin America. Phi
Delta Kappan, January, 1964B.

Jordan, S. The disadvantaged group: A concept applicable Li?
to the handicapped. J. Pcychol., 1963.

Kamenski, Gloria C. Some personality factors in attitudes.
toward technological change in a medium sized insur-
ance company. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1965.

Katz, D., & Stotland, E. A preliminary statement to a
theory of attitude structure and change. In S.
Koch (Ed.), Psycholcgy: A study of a science.
Vol. 3..Formulatlon of the person and the social
context. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959. Pp. 423—475.

167

Katz, D. The functional approach to the study of atti-
tudes. Publ. Opin. Q., Summer, 1960, 24(2), 163-204.

Katz, E., Levin, M. L., & Hamilton, M. Research on the
diffusion of innovation. Amer. Soc. Rev., April,
1963, 28(2).

 

Kelley, H. H., et a1. Some implications of social
psychological theory for research on the handicapped.
In L. H. Lofquist (Ed.), Psychological research and
rehabilitation. Washington, D. C.: American
Psychological Research and Rehabilitation, American
Physiological Association, 1960.

Kelmen, H. C. The induction of action and attitude change.
Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of
Applied Psychology. G. Nielson (Ed.), Personality
Research, Vol. 2, 81-110.

Kenworthy, A. L. Use of analysis of variance routines on
the CDC 3600. ABS Program Description 2, Computer
Laboratory, Michigan State University, September, 1963.

Kerlinger, F. N. The attitude structure of the individual;
a Q-study of the educational attitudes of professors
and laymen. Genetic Psycholqu, 1956, 53, 283-329.

Kerlinger, F. N. Progressiveness and traditionalism: Basic
factors of educational attitudes. J. of Soc. Psych.,
1958’ 68, 111-1350

Kerlinger, F. N., & Kaya, E. The construction and factor.
analytic validation of scales to measure attitudes
toward education. Educ. and Pcych. Meas., 1959, 19,
13-29 0

Kerlinger, F. N. Factor invariance in the measurement of:
attitudes toward education. Educ. and Psych. Meas.,
1961, 21.

Kerlinger, F. N. The first- and second-order factor
structures of attitudes toward education. Amr. Educ.
Res. JO’ May, 1967’ “(3)9

Khleif, B. B.v Teachers as predictors of juvenile delin-
quency and psychiatric disturbance. Soc. Prcb.,
Winter, 1964, 11(3).

 

Kilpatrick, F. P., & Cantril, H. Self-anchoring scaling:
A measure of individuals' unique reality worlds.
J. Indiv. Psychology, 1960, 16, 158-173.

168

King, G. W. Selected patterns of behavior and social
characteristics of white collar and blue collar
residents in three suburban subdivisions. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1965.

Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston:
Houghton, Mifflin, 1962.

Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck,.F. L.- Variations in
value orientations. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peter-
son, and Co., 1961.

 

Knight, 0. B. Study of attitudes of a select group of
principals toward special classes for the mentally
retarded. J. Ncgro Educ., Spring, 1966, 184-188.

Knittel, M. G. A comparison of attitudes toward the dis-
abled between subjects who had a physically disabled
sibling and subjects who did not have a physically
disabled sibling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
State University of South Dakota, 1963.

Knower, F. H. Experimental studies of changes in atti-.
tudes: A study of the effect of oral argument on
change of attitude. J. of Social Psychology, 1935,
6,,315-347.

Koo, M. American students' contacts with and attitudes to-
ward foreign students. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Michigan State University, 1962.

Kostiuk, N. Attitude changes of culturally deprived school
children in a large metropolitan gray-areas project.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania
State University, 1963.

Kramer, A. S. The interrelation of belief systems and
educational values: A study of the educational atti-
tudes of individual school teachers. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1963.

Krans, S. Modifying prejudice: Attitude change as a
function of the race of the communication. Audio-
visual Communication Review, 1962, 10(1), 14-22.

Kreider, 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.

169

Krich, Blanche L. A study of certain values and attitudes
of students in a liberal arts college. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1963.

Kvaraceus, W. C. Acceptance-rejection and exceptionality.
Except. Child., 1956.

Kvaraceus, W. D. Juvenile Delinquency. Department of
classroom teachers, American Education Research
Association of the National Education Association,

1958.

Lauritzen, P. W. Development of scales to measure parental.
attitudes toward education. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1964.

Law, J. B. Attitude change as related to change in per-
ception of the group norm, 1954, Dissertation Ab-
stract 14, 1108, 160.

Lawrence, Edna, R. The relationship of.teachers' expressed
self-acceptance and acceptance of children to social
beliefs and educational attitudes. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1963.

Lerner, D. The passing of traditional socio_y. New York:
Free Press of Glencoe, 1958.

Levine, S. A. Conceptual framework for special education.
Except. Child., October, 1961, 28(2), 83-90.

Lewis, H. 8., Studies in principles of judgment and atti-
tudes: The operation of the prestige suggestion.
J. of Social Psychology, 1941,14, 220-229-256.'

Lingoes, J. 0. Multiple scalogram analysis: A set
theoretical model for analyzing dichotomous items.
Educ. and Psych. Meas., 1963, 23(3), 501- 524.

Lingoes, J. C. An IBM-7090program for Guttman-Lingoes

multi-dimensional scalogram analysis-~I. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan, 1965.

Lipset, S. M. The value patterns of democracy. Amer.
Soc. Rev., August, 1963, 28(4).

Litchfield, T. B.- Interpretations ofja factor analysis
of personal attitudes of lay citizens toward
schools in selected New York Central School Districts.
Unpublished- doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity, 1963.

170

Lofquist, L. (Ed. ). - Psychological research and rehabili-
tation. Washington, D. 0. American Psychological
Association, 1960.

Logan, J. B. The relationship between teachers attitudes
toward supervisors and certain selected variables
that might affect their attitude. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity, 1962.

Loomis, C. P. Social systems. Princeton, N. J.: D. Van
Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960.

Mader, J. B. Attitudes of special educators toward the
physically disabled and toward education. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1967.

Mahoudi, K. M. The relationship between "authoritarianism"
and attitude toward educational television. Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
1962.

Manunpicha, K. A survey of social attitudes among THAI
students in American educational institutions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Colorado State
College, 1964.

Maslow, A. H. (Ed.). New knowledge in hgman values.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959.

McAlees, D. C. An exploratory study of special education~
in the Central American Republic of Guatemala.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1963.

McCreary, J. R. The modification of international attitudes:
A New Zealand study. Wellington, New Zealand:
Victoria University College, Publications in Psychology,
1953.

Mead, M. Cultural patterns and technical changy. UNESCO,
1955.

Mehling, R. A simple test for measuring intensity of
attitudes.. Publ. Opin. Q., 1959, 23.

Merton, R. K. Social theory and social structure. New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1957.

171

Meyers, C. E., Sitkei, E. G., & Watts, C. A. Attitudes
toward special education and the handicapped in two
community roups. Amer. J. Ment. Defic., July, 1966,
71(1): 78" I4.

Meyerson, L. Physical disability as a social psychological
problem. J. of Social Issues, 1948, 4(4), 2-10.

Meyerson, L. Somatopsychology of physical disability.
In W. M. Cruickshank (Ed.), Psycholcgy of exceptional
children and youth. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, 1963. Pp. 1-52.

Miles, A. P.; American social theory; a critique and a
proposal. New York: Harper, 1964?

Miller, J. E. A study of the attitudes of Oklahoma public
school elementary and secondary classroom teachers,
and public school district superintendents toward
the Oklahoma Education Association. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1963.

Morris, C. Varieties of human value. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, 1956.

Murphy, A. T._ Attitudes of educators toward the visually
handicapped. Sight-Saving Review, Fall, 1960, 30(3),
157-1 2.

Nash, M. V. A study of attitudes of a group of non-.
handicapped people toward the orthopedically handi-
capped. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia
University, 1962.

Norris, Eleanor, L. Belief change and stress reduction as
methods of resolving cognitive inconsistency. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1964.

Nunally, J. G., & Babren, H. M., Attitude change with false
information. Publ. Opin. Q., 1959, 23(2), 260-266.

Oliver, R. A. C., & Butcher, H. J. Teacher's attitudes to
education. British J. of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 1962, 1, 56-69.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, D. H.’ The
measurement of meaning. Urbana, Illinois: Uni-
versity of Illinois Press, 1957.

Palmerton, K. E. Attitudes of college counselors toward
education and toward physically disabled persons..
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1967.

I/

172

Parsons, F. The social system. New York: The Free Press
of Glencoe, 1951.

Parsons, T., & White, W. The link between character and
society. In S. M. Lipset and L. Lowenthal (Eds.),_
Culture and social character. New York: The Free
Press, 1961. Pp. 98-103.

Payne, S. L. The art of asking questions. Princeton,
N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1951.

Peifer, J. E. The development of an attitude scale to
measure students attitudes toward reading in the
secondary schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
The Pennsylvania State University, 1962.

Priest, Z. A. Changes in student attitudes toward safety
education in the graphic arts laboratory. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Colorado State College, 1964.

Proctor, Doris I. The relationships between knowledge of
disabilities, kind and amount of experience, and
classroom integration of exceptional children. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1967.

Purcell, W. J. Some factors affecting attitudes of pro-
spective teachers toward elementary mathematics.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity, 1964.

Radtke, R. C. An S-R approach to attitude intensity. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, State University_of
Iowa, 1963.

Ramer, H. R. Perceptions of university departments and of
the role of their chairman:_ A study of some atti-
tudes and Opinions of selected professors, depart-
ment chairmen, deans, and central administrators of
the Ohio State University. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963.

Richard, P. H. A descriptive study of—teachers' attitudes
about different aspects of their work. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation University of Nebraska
Teachers College, 1964.

Richardson, S. A., Goodman, N., Hastorf, A. H., & Dorn-
busch, S. M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to
physical disabilities. Amer. Soc. Rev., April, 1961,
27, 241-247.

173

Riley, M. W., Riley, J. W., & Jackson, T. Sociological

studies in scale anal sis. New Brunsw c : utgers
University Press, 1954.

Riley, M. W. Sociolo ical research. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1963.

Robbins, R. E., The development of a scale to measure the
attitude of teachers toward teaching as a profession
(Research Study No. l). Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Colorado State College, 1962.

Robinson, M. E. Educationyfor social change. Washington,
D. C.: The Brookins Institution, May, 1961.

Roeher, G. A. A study of certain public attitudes toward
the orthopedically disabled. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, New York University, 1959.

Roeher, G. A._ Significance of public attitudes in the
regabilitation of the disabled. Rehab. Literature,
19 1.

Rogers, C. R. Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1951.

Rogers, E. M. Diffusion of innovations. New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1962.

Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic
Books, Ific., 1960.

Rokeach, M. Attitude, attitude change and behavior change.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University
Library, East Lansing, Michigan, 1966.

Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics.
Publ. Opin. Q., Summer, 1960, 24(2), 319-340.

Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal
affect. J. of Abn. and Soc. Psych., 1956, 53,
367—373.

Ross, B. E. A study of attitude and value indeterminancy
in entering college freshman. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Ohio State University, 1963.

Rothschild, C. S., The reaction to disability in rehabili-
tation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio
State University, 1963.

174

Ruble, W. L., & Rafter, Mary E.‘ Calculation of basic

statistics when missin ‘data i TinVOIVed, (The
MDSTAT Routine). SEat. Series Description NO. 6,
Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State
University, 1966.

 

Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. Calculation
of least 8 uareS' re'ression) prOblems on the LS
"routine. ta ,, er es Description No. 7,-Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Michigan State Uni-~
versity, 1966.

    
   

Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, Mary E. One-way

analysis of variance with une ual number of re li-
cationSQpermitted‘(UNEQl'routine). Stat. Series

Description No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station,
Michigan State University, 1966.

 

Ruble, W. L., Paulson, Sara J.,.& Rafter, Mary E. Analysis
of covariance and analrsis of variance with-une ual
frequencies permitted in tRe-ceII--no.InteractIon
gfiggpys is routine temporary. Stat. Series Descrip-
tion No. 115, Agr cu ura xperiment Station,

Michigan State University, 1966.

 

 

 

Russo, E. J., Group affiliation and its relationship to
attitudes toward support of public education: Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley, 1963.

Salkins, I. Changing employers attitudes toward the-
psychologically handicapped.. J. of Rehabilitation,
1962, 28(3), 26,

Scholten, E. A. School readiness: A study comparing the
attitudes.of school and kindergarten teachers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1965.

Scott, W. A. Impirical assessment of values and ideologies.
Amer. Soc. Rev., 1959, 24, 299-310.

Semmel, M. I. Teacher attitudes and information pertain-
ing-to mental deficiency. Amer. J. Ment. Defic.,
1959. 63. 566-674.

Semmel, M. I., & Dickson, S. Connotative reactions of

college students to disability labels. Except.
Child., March, 1966, 32(7).

Shibutani, T. Society and personality. Englewood Cliffs,
NO JO :, Prentice-Hall, 19 10

175

Sinha, B. K. Maternal attitudes and values in respect to
emotionally disturbed and physically disabled per-
sons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan:
State University, 1966.

Smith, B. M. Attitudes and adjustment in cross-cultural
contact: Recent studies of foreign students. J. of
Social Issues, 1965, 12(1).

Smith, G. M.- A study-of state employment counselors'
attitudes toward and knowledge of the mentally re-
tarded (research Study No. 1). Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Colorado State College, 1964.

Smith, H. E. An analysis of the effects of university
prestige figures in changing the attitudes of stu-
dents in the area of the university image. Unpub-
ligced doctoral dissertation, Indiana University,
19 .

Smith, Inez L. The invariance Of educational attitudes
and their relations to social attitudes: An inverse
factor analytic study. Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, New York University, 1963.

Smith, M. B. Personal values as determinants of a political
attitude. J. of Psych., 1949, 23, 477-486.

Speer, S. C. A study of dropouts among vocational high'
school pupils with respect to attitudes toward
school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Connecticut, 1964.

Stauffer, S. A. Social research to test ideas. New York:
The Free Press of Olencoe, 1962.

Stefflre, B. Vocational value inventory. Tentative manual.
Easg Landing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
195 .

Sterns, G. G. Measuring noncognitive variables in research
on teaching. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of
research on teaching. Pp. 398-447.’

Stouffer, S. A. An overview of the contributions to
scaling and scale theory. In S. A.-Stouffer et a1.,
Measurementiand prediction. Princeton: Princeton-
University Press, 1950.

Strauss, A. (Ed.). The social psychology of George Herbert.

Mead. Chicago: Phoenix Books, University of Chicago
Press, 1956.

176

Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and
opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer et a1., Measure-
ment and rediction. Princeton, N. J.: Princeton

nivers ty ress, 1950.

Suchman, E. A. Public Opinion research across national
boundaries. Publ. Opin. Q., Summer, 1958, 22(2).

Suchman, E. A. An analysis of bias in survey research.
Publ. Opin. Q., Spring, 1962.

Suchman, E. A. The comparative method in social research.
Rural Soc., June, 1964.

Suchman, E. A., & Guttman, L. A solution to the problem
of question bias. Publ. Opin. Q., 1947, 11, 445-455.

Suedfeld, P. Conceptual and environmental complexity as
factors in attitude change. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Princeton University, 1963.

Tackuma, S. Health attitude scaling: An empirical study:
of the criterion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Stanford University, 1962.

Tanaka, J., & Osgood, C. E. Cross-culture, cross-concept
and cross-subject generality of affecting meaning

system. J. of Personality and Social Ps cholo ,
1965’ 2. -' e

Tannenbaum, P. H. Initial attitude toward source and con-
cept as factors in attitude change through communi-
cation. Publ. Opin. Q., 1956, 20, 413-423.

 

Tannenbaum, P. H., Mediated generalization of attitude
change via the principle of congruity. J. Personal.
& Applied Sci., May, 1966, 493-499.

Taylor, J. L. A study of the relationship between attitudes
toward education and the extent to which teachers
participate in certain professional activities. Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Arizona State Uni-

versity, 1963. f
:I

Tenny, J. W. The minority status of the handicapped. 9”
Except. Child., April, 1953, 18, 260-264.
I

Thomas, Mary M. A comparative study of personality patterns
and attitudes towArd mental retardation and child-
rearing practicesgof parents of intellectually normal
and.educab1eand trainable mentally retarded children.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Minnesota, 19636

177

Thoreson, W. P.: Conflicting social norms as they affect
attitudes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, 1963.

Tisdale, J. R.~ Psychological value theory and research:
1930-1960. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Boston University, 1961.

Tollefeon, T. I. The relationship between attitudes,
personal values, biographical data and proficiency
ratings obtained upon psychiatric aides. Purdue
University, 1963.

Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1965.

UNESCO. Comparative cross-national research. Int. Soc.
Sci. Bull., 1955, 7(4).~

UNESCO. Opinion surveys in developing countries. Int. Soc.
Sci. J., 1963, 15(1).

Venn, G. ManI education and work. Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 1964.

Vittetoi, J. O. The influence of cooperating teachers on
attitudes of student teachers. Unpublished doctoral.
dicsertation, The Pennsylvania State University,

19 3.

Vocational Rehabilitation Administration.. Department of.
Health, Education and Welfare. Rehabilitation of the
disabled in fift -one countries. Washington, D. C.:
U. S. Covernmen rinting Office, 1962.

Wagman, M. Attitude change and authoritian personality.
J. of Psychology, 1958, 40, 3-24.

Waisanen, F. B. A notation technique for scalogram analysis.
The Soc. Q., October, 1960, 1(4),.245-252.

Waisanen, F. B. Finding a place in cpntomporary mass
societ : Approblem'Of‘rOles. Department of ocial
Science, The University College, Michigan State
University,tl962.

Waisanen, F. B. Some theoretical convergencies in the
social psychology of alienation. A paper for the
VIII Inter-American Congress of Psychology, Mar
del Plata, Argentina, April, 1963.

178

Wallis, G. W. Some social dimensions of attitudes toward
civil defense. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Florida State University, 1963.

Ward, J. H., Jr.' Multiple linear regression models.
In H. Borko (Ed.), Computer applications in the
behavioral sciences. Eng ewood Cliffs: rentice-
Hall, 1962.

Webb, J. R. A study of the relationship of teaching
difficulties reported by beginning secondary teachers
to teacher-pupil attitudes and other variables.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Arkansas, 1962.

Wells, D. E. The effect of choice messages on attitude
Chan e. FEast Lansing: Michigan State University,
1964.

White, Marjorie. A study of the change of achievement
and attitudes toward arithmetic by prospective
elementary school teachers under the condition of
television. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Wayne State University, 1963.

Whiteman, M., & Luckoff, I. F.. Public attitudes toward
blindngss. The New Outlook for the Blind, May, 1962,
153-15 0

Williams, R. American societ . New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1951. Pp. 372-442.

Wilson, E. C.* Problems of survey research in modernizing
areas. Publ. Qpin._Q., Fall, 1958, 22(3), 230-234.

Windle, C., & Vallance, T. F. -The future of military
psychology: Para-military psychology. American
prcholpgist, February, 1964, 19(2), 119-128.

Woodruff, A. D., & Di Vesta, F. J. The relationship between
values, concepts.and attitudes. Educ. and Psych.
meage, 1948, 8’ OHS-660..

Wright, Beatrice A. HHysical disability--A psychological
approach. New York:. Harper and rothers, 19 0.
Wright, W. A study to determine the extent of agreement on
general educational goals, objectives, and in atti-v

tudes among the new and beginning teachers, the
experienced teachers, and the administrators in the
six public high schools in Alburquerque, New Mexico

(Research Study No. l). Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Colorado State College, 1962.

 

179

Wu, Y. Attitudes of individuals with visible and in-
visible physical impairments toward their disability.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York Uni-
versity, 1962.

Yuker, H. E. Attitudes as determinants of behavior.
J.-Rehabilit., November-December, 1965, 15-17.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, W. J. A scale to
measure attitudes toward disabled persons. Human.
Resources Stud., 1960.

Zetterberg, H. L.- On theory and verification 1p sociology.
Totawa, N. J.: The Bedminster Press, 1963.

APPENDICES

180

APPENDIX A-l

DEFINITION OF PHYSICAL HANDICAP

181

182

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:

1.

2.

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 understand.

Disfigured--those who have been Obviously
damaged about the face, such as with burns
or scars, so that the face has been changed.

APPENDIX A-2

EDUCATION SCALE

183

NO. Location
Male Group

Female Date

 

EDUCATION SCALE

Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of Opinion about
education. We all think differently about schools and edu-
cation. Here you may express how you think by choosing one

of the four.possib1e answers following each statement. These
answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the state-
ment. Please mark your answer oyjplgcinga circle around the
number in front 0 ‘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_ycu select.

1. The goals of education should be dictated by children's
interests and needs as well as by the larger demands of

society.
l._ 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

2. No subject is more important than the personalities of
the pupils.
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

G1266

No.

2 E.D.
Schools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and
arithmetic: the three R's.
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

The pupil-teacher relationship is the relationship be-
tween a child who needs direction, guidance, and control
and a teacher who is an expert supplying direction,
guidance, and control.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 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
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. 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.

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?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly
Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize
our own and other economic systems and practices.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 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
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 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.

10.

11.

Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to
test alternatives before accepting any of them.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 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

The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned
and skills to be acquired.

l. 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

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.

l3.

l4.

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 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

The curriculum should be made up of an orderly sequence
of subjects.that-teach to all students the best of our
cultural heritage.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 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.
Discipline should be governed by long-range interests
and well-established standards.

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.

15.

16.

17.

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 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
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

3. 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
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 4. Very strongly

No.

18.

19.

20.

Children need and should have more supervision and
discipline than they usually get.

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.
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 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

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 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

APPENDIX A-3

SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES

191

SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAL VALUES

Leonard V. Gordon

No. Locality

 

Male Femalecc _Group
(Please indicate)

Directions

In this booklet are statements representing things that
people consider to be important to their way of life. These
statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you
are asked to do:

Examine each set. Within each set, find the one state-
mcpp of the three which represents what you consider to be
most important to you. Put an "X" in the space beside that-
statement in the column headed M (for 2223):

Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set.
Decide which cps of these statements represents what you con-
sider to be least important to you. Put an "X" in the space
beside that statement in the column headed L (for lccpp).

For every set you will mark one statement as represent-
ing what is most important to you, one statement as repre-
senting what is least important to you, and you will leave

one statement unmarked.

G1266

EXAMPLE: 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 p933) 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 H3333
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 Hcggp) 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 onHy_one M (most) choice and pply one L (least) choice
in a set. DO not skip any Sets. Answer every set. Turn

this booklet over and begin.

10.
ll.
12.

l3.
14.
15.

16.
17.
18.

19.
20.
21.

MOST

lass:

 

 

 

To
To

To

To

be free to do as I choose.
have others agree with me.

make friends with the unfortunate.

be in a position of not having to follow

orders.

To

To

To
To
To

To
To

To

To
To

To

To
To
To

To
To

To

follow rules and regulations closely.

have people notice what I do.

hold an important job or office.
treat everyone with extreme kindness.

do what is accepted and proper.

have people think of me as being important.
have complete personal freedom.

know that people are on my side.

follow social standards of conduct.
have people interested in my well being.

take the lead in making group decisions.

be able to do pretty much as I please.
be in charge Of some important project.

work for the good of other people.

associate with people who are well known.
attend strictly to the business at hand.

have a great deal of influence..

22.
23.
24.

25.
26.

27.

28.
29.
300

31.
32.
33.

34.-
35.
36c

37.
38°
39°

40.
41.
42.

MOST

III III III III III III IIII

r"
tn
:D
CO
8

 

III III III III III III III

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.

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.

spend my time doing things for others.

43.

44.
45.

46.
”7.
48.

49.
50.

51.

52.
53.
54.

55.
56.
57.

58.
59.

MOST

LEAST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60.‘

61.
62.
63.

 

 

 

To
To
To

To
To

To

To
To

To

To
To
To

To
To

To

To
To
To

To
To

To

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.

6H.
65.
66.

67.
68.
69.

70.
71.

72.

73.
7M.
75.

76.
770
78.

79.
80.

81.

82.
83.
84.

MOST

l l

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.

850
86.
87.

88.
89.
90.

MOST

LEAST

To always do what is morally right.
To go out of my way to help others.
To have people willing to offer my a
helping hand.

To have people admire me.

To always do the approved thing.

To be able to leave things lying around
if I wish.

APPENDIX A-u

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

199

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.themyour answers are important.

The second part of the questionnaire has to do with
personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is
completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions
freely without any concern about being identified. It is

important to the study to obtain-your answer to everyquestion.

G1266

 

In I. .III ‘I .‘IIII. lllll .Illl. \ Illllll

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Please read each question carefully and do not omit any ques-
tions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or
answers) or fill in the answer as requested.

SECTION 1: Experiences with Schools & Education

1. Below are listed several different kinds of schools or
educational provisions., In respect to these various kinds
or levels of education, which one have you had the most
experience with,_or do you have the'most'knOWIedge'about?
Please place the number of the group you know best in Box A,
the number of the group you know next best, in’on B, and
the third best in Box C. .

 

 

 

 

 

1. Elementary school.(grade school) A.. , (best

 

 

 

2. Secondary school (high school)

 

 

 

3. College or university B. (32::
A. Other types (please specify)

o ‘ (thir

“ best

 

 

 

2. The following questions have to do with the kinds of con-
tacts 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
My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband)
or child works in education (in any position; pro—
fessional or non-professional)---—----------—---— -------
Some other relative works in education-e ----------- —----

I have worked in education, as a teacher, adminis-‘
trator, counselor, volunteer, etc. ......................

A friend of mine works in education-e-—_--------_ .......
A neighbor of mine works in education ———————————————————

I have studied about schools and education through
reading, movies, lectures, or observations------—— ——————

I have read or heard a little about schools and
Educ at 10n------------.—---————-—————-——--—-———————— ------

I know little or nothing about education ————————————————

Other (please specify)

 

)

)

d
)

0

1
2

3
u

5‘

6

7
8

9

3. About how much have you worked in schools or edu—
cational settings? Please circle the number of the one
best answer.

Never ----- —----------—------—---———--_-—----_-, ..... 1
Less than three months-------—-——-—-_ ............... 2
Between three and six months---— ------------ ------——3
Between six months and one.year ..................... u
Between one and three years--—----———-— ............. 5
Between three and five years--—-—— —————————————————— 6
Between five and ten years-----—--——_—___-_--_--_---7
Over ten years -------------------------------------- 8
Over fifteen years-------------—————--_--_--------_-9

u. If you have ever worked in education, about what percent
of your income was-derived from such work?

Less than 10z----——_----_--------------------_ ...... 1
Between 10 and 2S%-------------—-——--—-f ------------ 2
Between 25-and 50%--------—----——-—__ ............... 3
Between 50 and 75% ------------------------- - ........ 4‘
More than 73%-----------—--——————..—..—_. ........... 5
I have not worked in education ...................... 6

5. 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—------4 --------------- 2.
I have liked it somewhat- --------------------------- 3
I have definitely enjoyed it ------------------------ A

I have never had such an experience-—---— ........... 5

6. 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 in-
stead; that is, something else that was, or is, acceptable

to you as a Job?

 

 

No other Job was available------------—------— ------- 1
Other Jobs available were not at all acceptable 2
to me------------—---—-----—------------—---— --------
Other Jobs available were not quite acceptable

to me----------------— ------------------------------- 3
Other Jobs available were fully acceptable to me ----- u
I don't know what other Jobs were available or

acceptable ------------------------------------------- 5

I have had no work experience in education ----------- 6

No. 4 P.Q.

SECTION 2: Personal Information

 

 

 

9. How old are you? (Write age in box) ----------

 

10. Where were you mainly reared or "brought up" in your
youth (that is up to age of 15 or 16)?

City---------—--------------——————-_-_------_----_--_1
City suburb ------------------------------------------ 2
Country town--- -------------------------------------- 3
Country ---------------------------------------------- A
Other (please specify) 5

 

ll. Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family)
been mainly employed during the past 3 years?

City ------------------------------------------------- 1
City suburb ------------------------------------------ 2
Country town ----------------------------------------- 3
Country------—--------------—-—-—-—__—-----_ ......... u
Other (please specify) 5

 

12. Where have you mainly lived during the past 3 years?

City ----------------------------------- ----.---_ ..... 1
City suburb--—----— ---------------------------------- 2
Country town-—----------—----. ....................... 3
Country----------------— ............................. u

Other (please specify) ............................... 5

No. 5 P.Q.

13. What is your marital status?

Married----— ----------------------------------------- 1
Single ----------------------------------------------- 2
Divorced-—-------------------—---—-_-------_-------_-3
Widowed--------------------——_ ....................... u
Separated -------------------------------------------- 5

 

In. How many children do you have? (Please write number
in box) ----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

15. Please answer either A or B; whichever applieS'best to
your present situation.

 

a. If you are self-supporting, about what is your
total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are _
married, the total yearly income in the family).
Include extra income from any regular sources
such as dividends, insurance, etc. Please write
the total in the box.

b. If you are not self-supporting (or, if you are
married, if your family is not self-supporting)
what is the approx mate 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.r

 

 

 

 

16. According to your answer to question 15, about how does
your income compare with that of most people in your community?

Much lower--------------—--——--———-_— ................ 1
Lower--------------—--—----————-——-_;__-- ............ 2
About the same------— ................................ 3
Higher ----------------------------------------------- 8
Much higher-----------------—-———--—--—---_--_ ....... 5

No. 6 P.Q.

 

 

in box) -------------------------------------------

18. How many sisters have you? (Please write number

17. How many brothers have you? (Please write number T““'
in bOX) ------------------------------------ -------

 

 

19. About how does (or did) your father's income com-
pare with that of most people?

Much lower------------— ------------------------------ 1
Lower ------------------------------------------------ 2
About the same --------- - ........................ ---_-3
Higher ----------------------------------------------- A
Much higher-------------—----——-_----_-__ ............ 5
No opinion--------------------—-----—--_ ............. 6

20. What is your religion?

Catholic-------- ------------------------------------- 1
Protestant--------------—-———-_-----------_----------2
Jewish------------------—-—-—_—_—-_. ........ - ........ 3
None-----—---—----------—-_—-------_-_---_---_ ....... u
Other -------------- - ----- - ........................... 5

21. About how important is your religion to you in your
daily life?

Not very important-------—-—-——_-—-_---------------_-1

Very important ....................................... 3

No. ‘ 7 P-Qo.

22. 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 personally close to,
whom you consider to be close friends, or that are relatives

of yours.

None -------------------------------------------------- 1
Less than 10% ......................................... 2
Between 10 and 30% .................................... 3
Between 30 and 50% .................................... u
Between 50 and 70% ................................... -5
Between 70 and 90% -------------------------- - ......... 6
More than 90%-----------—--— -------------------------- 7

I do not usually talk or make contact with other
adult persons where I am employed ---------- - ---------- 8

23. How important is it to you.to work with people you feel
personally close to?

Not at all important .................................. 1
Not very important----—-----——— ....................... 2
Fairly important-----------—----—---_ ................. 3
Very important ........................................ u

24. Now please consider all of the personal contacts you.have
with people when you are not at work. Would you estimate
about what percent of your contacts'apart from working hours
are spent with people whom you know because of'yourfiob; that
is who work at the same Job, trade or profession, or’in the.
same place that you do, or that you otherwise contact in the
pursuit of your Job.

None -------------------------------------------------- 1
Less than 10% -------- —-—--—---—---—---_------_--------2
Between 10 and 30% .................................... 3
Between 30 and 50%-----—--—-————-———_——------_ ........ u
Between 50 and 70% .................................... 5
Between 70 and 90% .................................... 6

More than 90% ----------------------------------------- 7

NO. 8 PoQo’

25. People have different ideas about "social class." Which
of the following possibilities best agrees with your thinking*
about how many social classes there probably are?

None or one -------------------------------------------- 1
Two classes; lower and upper— .......................... 2
Three classes; lower, middle, and upper— ............... 3
More than three classes ................................ u
No opinion --------------------------------------------- 5

26. Which social class do you believe you are in?

 

Lower------------------——-——-——-—_---_-----------_---_-1~
Middle ----------------------------------- - ............. 2
Upper -------------------------------------------------- 3
Other (please specify) ‘ ‘ ' " ' " A
No opinion ............................................. 5

27. Which social class do you believe your father is (or
was) in?

Lower------------------------—--—--————-——_---_---_---_1
Middle------------—_—--------------------_--------_----2
Upper -------------------------------------------------- 3
Other (please specify) - u

 

No Opinion ------------------------------- - ............. 5

N09 9 PoQo'

28. About how much education do you have?

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-- --------- - ------------- --H
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 no. of years of study or
diploma obtained .................................. 9

29. 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 -------------------------------- - ...... u
Much more than most .................................. 5-
No 0pinion--—------------——--—--_--------_--------,--6

30. About how does (or did) your father's 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

No opinion ------------------------------------------- 5

No. 10 P.Q.

31. What type of living arrangement do you have?

Rent a house ----------------------------------------- 1
Rent an apartment ------------------------------------ 2
Rent a room (meals in a restaurant, etc.) ............ 3
Purchase room and board (rooming house, etc.) -------- h
Own an apartment ..................................... 5
Own a house ------------------------------------------ 5
Other (please specify) 7

 

32. Please answer either A or B.

A. If you are renting the place where you live, about
how much money per month do you pay for rent? 1
(Please write amount in box) ------------- ----l

 

B. If you own the place where you live (house, apart-
ment, or other), about how much money per month

do you believe you could rent it for? (Pleas-
write amount in box) ......................... -

33. In every community each group (for example, schools,
businessmen, labor, the local government) has a different Job
to do for the community. In your.community, would you say
that the schools are doing an excellent, good, fair, or "oor
Job? How about businessmen? Labor? the local government?
the doctors and hospitals? the church? (Please place an E3
in the appropriate column to indicate how you feel that each
is doing its Job.)

Please answer for each group.

 

Group Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know

 

. Elementary Sch.

 

Secondary Sch.

 

. Universities

 

 

. Labor

 

. Local Govern.

 

1
2
3
A. Businessmen
5
6
7

. Health Services
(Drs. & HOSp.)

 

8. Churches

 

 

 

 

 

 

No." ' ll P.Q.'

3A. How long have you lived in your present community?

Less than 1 year ..................................... 1
From 1 to 2 years ------------------------------------ 2
From 3 to 6 years .................................... 3
From 7 to 10 years ................................... 4
Over 10 years ........................................ 5

35. Have you changed your residency during the past 2 years?
(Please circle the correct number).

Yes -------------------------------------------------- 1.
No--------------— ------------------------------------ 2'
36. Have you changed your employment during the past 2 years?
(Please circle the correct number).
Yes------------------------------—-----—----—---e----l
No --------------------------------------------------- 2

37. About how many times have you changed residency during
the past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number).

None------—----------------------------------- ------- l
1 time-------—------—-----—-— ------------------------ 2'
2 - 3 times---------------—--—---—--------------——-—-3
4 - 6 times----—-------------—------------— ---------- A
7 - 10 times---—---— --------------------------------- 5

Over 10 times----------------—-—-----—----- .......... 6

No. 12 P.Q._

38. About how many times have you changed Jobs during the
past 10 years? (Please circle the correct number).

None ----------------------------------------------- 1
1 time --------------------------------------------- 2
2 - 3 times ---------------------------------------- 3
A - 6 times—-----------------— --------------------- A
7 - 10 times --------------------------------------- 5
Over 10 times ...................................... 6

39. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title
or name of your Job and the nature of your work.

 

 

 

H0. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do
you observe the rules and regulations of your religion?
(Please circle the correct number).

Seldom ---------------------------------------------- 1
Sometimes ------------------------------------------- 2
Usual].y--—-------------.---—--—---—--————-——— ———————— 3

Almost always --------------------------------------- u

No. 13 P.Q.-

Al. 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).

Yes ---------------------------------------------------- 1
Maybe ----------------------- ————----------------_ ...... 2
Probably Not ------------------------------------------- 3
No ----------- — -------------------- - -------------------- A
Don't Know --------------------------------------------- 5>

42. 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 feel-
ing on the following statement? "New methods of raising
children should be tried out whenever possible."

Strongly agree ------ ——--——-——-----——-------------_-_,--1
Slightly-agree--—----—--------—---—-----—--------—-—---2
Don't know--------------—-————. ............... _ ........ 3
Slightly disagree----—-— ------------------- ----—---—---H
Strongly disagree-----------—-————--------------. ...... 5

A3. 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 some--
thing good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they
are doing wrong or rather, that they are doing right?

It is usually wrong ................................. ---2
It is probably all right ------------------------------- 3

It is always right----—-—---—--—_-——_ .................. u

No. 14 P.Q.

uu. 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 regulariy, even if they are doing a good Job."

Strongly agree -------------- -— ........................ 1
Slightly agree ........................................ 2
Don't know------------—----—-—————------------_ ....... 3
Slightly disagree ..................................... u
Strongly disagree ------------------------------------- 5

H5. Some people believe that more federal and 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 agree ........................................ 1
Slightly agree ........................................ 2
Don't know ........................................... -3
Slightly disagree-----—------—------——-———__—--___----u
Strongly disagree ..................................... 5

M6. Some people are more set in their ways than others.
How would you rate yourself?

I find it very easy to change my ways----------— ------ 1
I find it somewhat easy to change my ways-- ----------- 2
I find it Slightly difficult to change ---------------- 3

I find it very difficult to change ———————————————————— u

NO." "' l5 P.Q.

A7. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on
my own.

Agree strongly ---------------------------------------- 1
Agree slightly------------—--——————_——-._-----__--_---2
Don't know--—---—-----------— ................... ----_-3
Disagree slight1y-----—---------------------—-— ------- A
Disagree strongly ..................................... 5

AB. I like the kind of work that lets me do things about
the same way from one week to the next.

Agree strongly---—-----—-----—------—--—-----------—--l.
Agree slight1y-------—-----—--———---—. ....... - ........ 2
Don't know-—--------------———-—--------------------_-_3
Disagree slightly------—--—---——-_ .................... u
Disagree strongly ------------------------------------- 5

A9. A good son will try to find work that keeps him near his
parents even though it means giving up a good Job in another
part of the country?

Agree.strongly---—-----------------—--—--__-------.---1
Agree slightly--—----—--------—--——-——--__--_ ......... 2
Don't know -------------------------------------------- 3
Disagree slight1y-----------—-——-—-__--_--_-----_ ..... u-
Disagree strongly ------------------------------------- 5

50. We should be as helpful to people we don't know as we
are to our friends.

Agree strongly----—---------—----—--—-_—---,---.---_--1
Agree slightly-----------—--—---—-——--——----_--------_2*
Don't know-------------------—_.---. .................. 3‘
Disagree slight1y--------------—-------------.-------_u-

D1 Bagree 8t rOngly-------------------—---—--9 —————————— S

No. 16 P.Q.

51. Planning only makes a person unhappy because your plans
hardly ever work out anyway.

Agree strongly --------------------------------------- 1
Agree slightly ....................................... 2
Don't know ------------------------------------------- 3
Disagree slightly .................................... u
Disagree strongly .................................... 5

52. Which of the following requisites do you consider most
important to make your life more happy and satisfactory?

Nothing—--—-----------——--—---——-—-----------------_-1
More money ........................................... 2
More friends-----------——--—----—_-------_ ........... 3
Better Job----------—-—------—-_. .................... A
Good health ------------------------------------------ 5
Others (Specify) ‘ 6

 

53. What do you think you can do to make this possible?

Nothing

 

 

 

APPENDIX A-S

HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE (ATDP)

217

No.‘ Location
Male Group'

Female Date

 

HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE
Instructions: 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
following each statement. These answers indicate how much
you agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your
answer bypplacing a circle around the number in front of the
answer_you select.
You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly
you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this

part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a
"circle'around'the'number‘in'front'of'the'answer you select.

1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than
other parents.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
I. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly
3. Physically handicapped persons are Just as intelligent
as non-handicapped ones.
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 A. Very strongly
G1266

No.

2 ATDP

Handicapped people are usually easier to get along with
than other people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree 4. 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

Most physically handicapped people feel sorry for them-
selves.

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 the same as anyone else.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agreev

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

No.

3 ATDP

There should't be special schools for physically handi-.
capped 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?

I. 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

No.

10.

11.

A ATDP

Most physically handicapped people worry a great deal.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly
Physically handicapped people should not be expected to
meet the same standards as non-handicapped peOple.

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 as happy as non-
handicapped ones.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree-

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly. A. Very strongly

 

No.

12.

13.

1A.

5 ATDP
Severely physically handicapped people are no harder
to get along with than those with minor handicaps.-
l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to
lead a normal life.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?

1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

You should not expect too much from physically handi-
capped people.

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.

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.

I. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly
Physically handicapped 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
Most physically handicapped people feel that they are
not as good as other people.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly
2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

You have to be careful of what you say when you are
with physically handicapped people.

1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly-

2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

Physically handicapped people are often grouchy.
l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree

2. Disagree A. Strongly agree

About how strongly do you feel about your answer?
1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly

2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly

APPENDIX A-6

PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE (HP)

225

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 per-
sons, or you may have studied about them. On the-other
hand, you may have had little or no contact with physically
handicapped persons, and may have never thought much about

them at all.

For the purposes of this investigation, the answers Of all
persons_are important, so even if you know very little or
nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers

are important.

G1266

NO. ' 1
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.

 

SECTION 1: Experiences with Handicapped Persons

1. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below.
In respect to these various handicaps, which have you had
the most actual experience with. Please answer by circling
the number of thegroupyou select. Circle only one.

1. Blind 6. Disfigured (such as
severe burns or scars

2. Partially blind on face)

3. Deaf (and deaf-mute) 7. Spastic (or cerebral
palsy)

A. Partially deaf
8. Speech disorders
5. Crippled or amputated
limbs 9. None

2. 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. Blind 6. Disfigured (such as
severe burns or scars

2. Partially blind on face)

3. Deaf (and deaf-mute) 7. Spastic (or cerebral
palsy)

A. Partially deaf
8. Speech disorders
5. Crippled or amputated
limbs 9. None

 

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 ques-.
tions #3 through #8. If you indicated that you have

had experience with one or more of the above handicapped
conditions, please answer questions #3 through #8.

 

 

 

No.

The following questions have to do with the kinds of
experiences you have had with‘ h sicall handIcapped
persons. Please circle the‘numfier'of'each'experience
that applies to you. If more than one experience
applies, please circle a number for each experience
that applies.

My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband)
or child is physically handicapped -------------------- 1

Some other relative is physically handicapped-- ------- 2
I have personally worked with physically handicapped
persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child
care, etc. ---------------------------------- ----- ----- 3
A friend is physically handicapped ------ -— ------------ A

I have studied about physically handicapped persons
through reading, movies, lectures, or observations-—--S

I have read or heard a little about physically
handicapped persons ................................... 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 -------------------------------- 1
Between 10 and 50 occasions --------------------------- 2
Between 50 and 100 occasionsp------------——-————_ ..... 3
Between 100 and 500 occasions-----—--— ................ a

More than 500 occasions------—---------------—-—----——5

No. 3

5. When you have been in contact with physically handi-
capped people, how eas for you, in general, would it
have been to have av ded being with these handicapped
persons?

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only at great cost or difficulty ---------------- - ------ l

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
only with considerable difficulty ---------------------- 2

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
but with some inconvenience ............................ 3

I could generally have avoided these personal contacts
Without any difficulty or inconvenience ———————————————— A

6. During your contact with physically handicapped persons,
did you gain materially in any way through these contacts,
such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some
such gain?

Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped
persons--—- ............................................ 1

Yes, I have received academic credit or other
material gain ------------------------------------ - ..... 2

No, I have never received money, credit, or any other
material gain ------------------------------------------ 3

7. 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
contact with physically handicapped persons during the
actual period when working with them?

Less than 10% ------------------------------------------- 1
Between 10 and 25% -------------------------------------- 2
Between 25 and 50% ------ - ............................... 3
Between 50 and 75% ...................................... a

More than 75%-----------------—-——-——-------__--_-_ ..... 5

 

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 ——————————————— - ..... - ..... u

 

The following questions should be answered by all per-
sons, regardless of whether or not they have had any
personal contact with persons who are physically
handicapped.

 

 

 

9. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded per-
sons? Considering all of the times you have talked,
worked, or in some other way had personal contact with
mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it
been altogether? Please circle the number of the single
best answer.

Less than 10 occasions ----------------------------- - ----- 1
Between 10 and 50 occasions ------------------------------ 2
Between 50 and 100 occasions- ---------------------------- 3
Between 100 and 500 occasions----—-— --------------------- A
More than 500 occasions—--------------------—----------——5

10. 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 10 occasions ------------------- --------_ ....... 1
Between 10 and 50 occasions----— ------------------------- 2
Between 50 and 100 occasions ---------- - .................. 3
Between 100 and 500 occasions ............................ A

More than 500 occasions .................................. 5

APPENDIX B-l

BASIC VARIABLES OF THE STUDY

231

BASIC VARIABLES--MICHIGAN

A. Attitudes Toward Education

1.

A.

5.

Traditional attitudes, Items
18,19.
Raw score total - Content

Traditional attitudes, Items
18,19.
Raw score total - Intensity

Progressive attitudes, Items
Raw score total - Content

Progressive attitudes, Items
Raw score total ~ Intensity

Q'aire, Item 5 (enjoyment of

B. Experiences with Education

1.

3,u,6,1o,11,12,13,1u,

3,u,6,1o,11,12,13,1u,

1,2,5,7,8,9,15,16,17,2o.
1,2,5,7,8,9,15,16,17,2o.

contact)

Levels of education experienced

Q'aire, Item 1 (most contact)

Q'aire, Item 1 (additional contacts-no. of)

Type of contact with education

Q'aire, Item 2

Degree of contact (work) with education

Q'aire, Item 3

Personal gain through working in education

Q'aire, Item A (% of income)

Alternative opportunities available
Q'aire, Item 6 (refers to other possible employment)

C. Aid to Education--Financia1 (Q'aire)

Item A5 (local and federal)

G-1266

D. Interpersonal Values-—Gordon Scale

1.
2.

3.
A.
5.
6

R scores (yields comparative value score) Recognition
B scores (yields apset value score) Benevolence
S scores--Support
C scores—-Conformity

I scores--Independence

L scores--Leadership

E. Demographic S. E. 8., Other Control Data (All from
fi'aire--if not excepted)

1.

2.

12.
13.

Education Item 28
Occupation--current Item 39

Income and rental Item 15 (S. E. Class) Item 32
(income)

Age Item 9

Sex Front sheet of questionnaire

Marital status Item 13

Number of children Item 1A

Size of family Item 17 (bro.) Item 8 (318.)
Religious affiliation Item 20

Home ownership Item 31

Mobility Items 3A. 35. 37 — residency
Items 36, 38 - occupational

Rural-Urban Items 10, ll, 12

Employment status - current Item 39 (Employed,
unemployed, housewife, etc.)

F. Satisfaction with Institutions _Questionnairep Card 3

1.

2.

Satisfaction with elementary schools
Item 33-1

Satisfaction with_secondary schools.
Item 33-2.

 

3. Satisfaction with universities
Item 33-3
A. Satisfaction with business
Item 33-A
5. Satisfaction with labor
Item 33-5
6. Satisfaction with local government
Item 33-6
7. Satisfaction with health services
Item 33-7
8. Satisfaction with churches
Item 33-8
Self-Statements QuestionnaireLCard
1. Comparative income status — self Item 16
2. Comparative income - father Item 19
3. Number of social classes Item 25
A. Comparative social class - self Item 26
5. Comparative social class - father Item 27
6. Comparative education - self Item 29
7. Comparative education - father Item 30

Religiosity QuestionnaireL Card

1.
2.

3.

Perceived importance Item 21

Perceived no

Adherence It

rm conformity Item A0

em 20

Perponalism Questionnairel Card

1.

Orientation

(a) Stateme
Item 22
(b) Perceiv
Item 23

Diffusion of
Percent of 3

toward Job personalism
nt of extent of personalism on Job

ed importance of personal relations

personal relationships
ob-social overlap Item 2A

3.

A.

Familialism Item A9 (Son's work)

Other-orientation Altruism Item 50 (Toward friends
vs. others)

Attitudes Toward Change QuestionnaireL Card

Health practices (water) Item A1
Child rearing practices Item A2
Birth control practices Item A3
Political leadership change Item AA

Self-Conception

Item A6 (perceived self-rigidity)
Item A7 (Adherence to roles)

Item A8 (Job regularity and rigidity)

Future orientation
Item 51 (Planning)
Item 52 (Requisites for happiness)
Item 53-(Achievement of happiness)

Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons

1.

2.

3.

Handicapped Persons Scale Items 1-20 (content)
Raw score total

Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1—20 (intensity)
Raw score total

Personal Questionnaire: HP, Item 8 (enjoyment of.
contact)

Contact with Handicapped Persons

1.

Kinds of handicapped persons experienced
PQ-HP, Item 1 Most contact
PQ-HP, Item 2 Additional contacts

Type of relationship with handicapped
PQ-HP, Item 3

Frequency of contact with physically handicapped»
PQ-HP, Item A

Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicapped
PQ-HP, Item 5

Personal gain through working with handicapped persons
PQ-HP, Item 6 (experienced gain)
PQ-HP, Item 7 (Z of income)

Frequency of contact with mentally retarded
PQ-HP, Item 9 '

Frequency of contact with emotionally ill
PQ-HP, Item 10

APPENDIX B-2

CODE BOOK

237

CODE BOOK

Attitudes Toward the Education of Handicapped and
Non-Handicapped Persons: A Cross-Cultural Study.

Michigan Study

John E. Jordan

College of Education
Michigan State University
December 28, 196A*

 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK

1.

2.

Code 0 or 29 will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing,
except as noted.

Code i or 1: will mean there was No Information or the
Respondent did not answer, unless otherwise stated or
impossible to use.

Code 8 or 88 will always mean Don't Know unless otherwise
indicated,” or if it is impossible to use due to the type
of question.

In each case in the following pages the column to the left
column contains the question number from the ques stIonnaire;
the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form
of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within
each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code.
The fifth column (recode) specifies those items which'
should be checked for recoding after the item count is
finished; i.e., after all data is key punched, run the

data through the M.S.U. computer to determine the patterns.
of response alternatives to a question. This will indi-
cate if regrouping, etc. need to be considered for the Item.

Coder instructions always follow a line across the page
and are clearly indicated.

In some cases when codes are equal to others already used,
they are not repeated each time, but reference is made

to a previous code or the immediately previous code

with "same."

 

*The present code book was compiled under the direction

of Jordan (196A) and utilized in the Michigan study by Mader
(1967) and with some modification by Green (1967).

CARD

1 Page 1-1

 

Column-

Ques.

Item
Detail

Code Recode

 

1,2,3

10

Nation and Location

Group Number
Respondent Number

Sex of Respondent

Occupational Recode
(General)

Occupational Recode
(Green)

Unit
001
002
003
00A
005
006
015

Lati
101
102
103
10A
105
106

U) Ni—‘O +|\.)|-’
l I

IUD-J
I

ed States
Mich., Mt. Pleasant
Mich., Cadillac
Mich., Ann Arbor
Mich., Port Huron

- Kan., Wichita

- Ohio, Tiffin

- Michigan
n America

- Costa Rica

- Colombia

- Peru

- Argentina

Mexico
Surinam

- England
- Holland
- Belgium
- France
- Yugoslavia
- Denmark

- India
- Japan

- Kenya
- Rhodesia
- South Africa

99

Masculine
Feminine,

No Information,
No response

Code 01 — 09, Rehab., Spec. Ed.
Code 10 - 19, Education

Code 20 - A5, Professional,
Business, Medical

Code 50 - 86, White Collar,
Blue Collar, Laborer

Elementary Teacher
Secondary Teacher

CARD 1 Page l-2a

 

Column- Item Code

Ques. Detail Recode

 

11,12 Deck or Card Number 01

13,1A Project Director 01 - Felty: Costa Rica
02 - Friesen: Colombia and-Peru
03 - Krieder: EurOpe
0A - Mader: Michigan
05 - Jordan: Mt. Pleasant, Mich.
06 - Dickie: Kansas
07 - Sinha: Ohio
08 - Green: Michigan
15,16 Day of Adminis- l to 31

tration (Use the
actual day)

17, 18 Month of 01 - January
Administration 02 - February
03 - March

10 - October.
11 - November
12 - December

19,20 Year of 6A - 196A
Administration 6A - 1965

66 - 1966

75 - 1970

CARD 1 Page 1-2b

 

 

Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
21 Type of l - Group
Administration 2 - Self-administered
3 - Interview, individual
+ - No Information
22,23 Occupation of (01 - 09, Rehab. & Spec. Ed.)
Respondent* 01 - All administrative persons,
public & private schools or
agencies

02 - Teachers, elem. & secondary
academic and vocational

03 - School Special Services
(Psych., soc. work, speech,
etc.)

0A - University teachers, pro-
fessors, researchers,
specialists, etc.

05 - Medical (Doctors, Dentists,
etc.)

06 - Other professional (Psych.,
Soc. worker, Speech, etc.,
not primarily in public or
private schools)

07 - Para-medical (Nurse, O.T.,
R.T., P.T., etc.)

08 - Unskilled Help (Hospital aide,
janitor, any non-prof., non-
tech. role).

09 - Other

(lo-l9, Educational personnel
other than rehab. & spec. ed.)

10 - Elementary teachers (include
elem. v.p.'s, counselors, etc.)

11 - Secondary teachers

12 - Guidance & personnel workers
(psych., soc. work, counselor
if not elementary)

13 - Other special services (Speech
spec. teacher, audiometric,
etc.)

1A - Administrative (elem., sec.,
central office 323., including
elem. principal, sec. v.p. &
prin., etc., if non-teach.)

15 - University teachers, professors,
researchers, specialists, etc.

l6-- 19 Open

CARD 1

Page l-3

 

Column- Item
Ques. Detail

Code Recode

 

22,23 Occupation of
Respondent*
(Continued)

2O
21

23
2A

25
26

27
28

3O
31
32

33~

3A
35

36

37-

A0

A1
A2

A3

(20-25, Medical, other

than rehab. & spec. ed.)
General practitioners
Surgeons

Psychiatrists or psycho-
analysts

Dentists

All other medical
specialties

Open

Tech. & Prof.: Nurse.

O.T., P.T., R.T., Audio, etc.
Non-tech. & non-prof.: aide,
janitor, attendant, etc.

29 Open

(30 - 39, Professional and,
Technical, not Spec. Ed. &
Rehab. or Medical or Educ.)
Engineers (degrees): civil,
electrical, mechanical, etc.)
Lawyers, attorneys, public.
accountants

MiniSters, clergymen
Musicians

Clinical psychologist
Researchers, scientists, not
primarily in education
Social workers, etc.

39 Other

(A0 - A5, Business & Industry,
Managers, officials, prop.'s)
Gov't and other bureaucratic
officials: public administrators
and officers, union officials,
stage inspectors, public
utility, telephone officials,
etc.

Manufacturing, industrial~
officials, exec's, etc.
Non-mfg., service, industry:
bankers, brokers, insurance,
real estate

Retail trades: food clothing,
furniture, gasoline, vehicle
sales, etc.

CARD 1 Page l—A

 

 

Column- Item

Ques. Detail Code Recode

22,23 Occupation of- AA - General: i.e., manager,
Respondent“ executive, etc., no other
(Continued) qualifications

A5 - Open

(A6 - A9, Farm owners,
operators and managers of
large farms, e.g., heavy
equipment and/or many
empl.)

Farm owner

Farm operator (renter)
Farm manager

Open

.1:-
m .
I I I I

(50 - 59, White Collar:
office, clerical, etc.)

50 - Clerical & similar: tellers,
bookeepers, cashiers, secre-
taries, shipping clerks,
attendents, telephone oper-
ators, library asst's, mail
clerks and carriers, file
clerks, etc.

51 - Sales workers: advertising,
sales clerks, all mfg.,
wholesale, retail and other

52 - Small shopkeeper or dealer

53-- 59 Open

(60 - 69, Blue Collar:
craftsmen, foremen, and
kindred work)

60 - Craftsmen: carpenters, bakers,
electricians, plumbers, machin-
ists, tailors, toolmakers, etc.

6l<- Foreman: all construction,
mfg., transportation & communi-
cation, and other industries

62 - Servicemen: telegraph, tele-
phone, etc.

63 - Mechanics and repairmen

6A - Shoemakers, roofers, painters,
and plasterers

65 - Merchant marine, sailors
(non-military)

66 - Bus and cab drivers, motormen,
deliverymen, chauffeurs, truck
and tractor drivers

CARD 1 Page 1-5

 

 

Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
22,23 Occupation of 67 - Operatives of all other
respondent“ mech. equipment (machine,
(Continued) vehicle, misc. mfg.)
68 - 69 Open

(70-7A, Service and
Private Household workers)

70 - Private household: laundress,
housekeeper, cook

71 - Firemen and policemen,
sheriffs, and baliffs

72 - Attendents, professional
and personal (valet,
masseur, misc. mfg.)

73 - Misc. attendents and ser-
vices: hospital attendents,
bootblacks, cooks

7A - Open

(75-79, Military Personnel)

75 - Ranking officers, all ser-_
vices (Navy Commander and up,
Army and Marines Colonel and
up

76 - Junior Officers, Army & Air

77 - Junior Officers, Navy &
Marines

78 - Non-commissioned personnel,
Army and Air

79 - Non-commissioned personnel,
Navy and Marines

(80-86, Laborers)

80 - 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)

81 — Non-mfg., non-industrial:
fishermen, hunters, lumbermen,
miners, gardeners, teamsters,
garage laborers, etc.

 

 

CARD 1 Page 1-6
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
22,23 Occupation of 82 - Manufacturing of durable
respondent* goods: wood, clay, stone,
(Continued) (stonecutter), metal,

83 -

8A -

87 -

88 -

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

Persons have haven't worked,
such as housewives, students,
or others who have never had
a regular occupation

Don't know

No information, no answer,
refusal

 

*Instructions for Coder:

 

OCCUPATION; COLUMNS 22-23.

Coding

information is derived from two sources:
1. Occupational description of groups as listed on the.
administrator's summary sheet.
2. Personal statements by the respondents in Question 39 of

the questionnaire.

information.

Question 39 is the primary source of
If vague, incomplete, or otherwise un-

scorable, use summary sheet as supplementary data or
score entirely from summary sheet.

CARD 1 Page 1-7

 

 

Column- Item
Ques. Detail COde Recode
2A Current Employment 1 - Employed or self-
Status* employed
2 - retired
3 - Temporarily out of
work
A - Housewife, but formerly
employed
5 - Unable to work (other
than retired or house-
wife) but formerly em-
ployed
6 - Student or persons
trained for employment
but not working for
various reasons
+ - No Information
25 1 All questions 1 -.l Strongly disagree
thru thru in handi- 2 - 2 Disagree
AA 20 capped per- 3 — 3 Agree~
Content** sons scale A - A Strongly agree
are to be
scored from
raw data.

See instruc—
tions below.+

 

*Instructions for Coder: EMPLOYMENT STATUS; COLUMN 2A. Code
from questionnaire Question 39, if person clearly states employment
status. If no employment stated, and no indication with certainty
from administrator's summ ry sheet that person is part of an em-
ployed group, score 2. ‘“

Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING1
COLUMNS 25-AA. NOTE: Certain steps and procedures are the same
for the education scale as for the handicapped persons scale.
These procedures will be written in capital letters.

"''1. Reverse the content response numbering for the Handi-
capped Persons Scale (NOT the intensipy response number) for items
2, 5, 6, 11, and 12, as follows:

Page 1—8

The number of response is changed to and scored directly on

data sheets.

1 u
2 3
3' E
F. 1

2. Special instructions for NO RESPONSE. Count the number
of NO RESPONSE items. If more than—60 occur, 56 not score re-
spondent for this scale. If more than 3 occur in sequence, do
not score respondent for this scale. If there are 6 or less in
total, and 3 or less in sequence, the NO RESPONSE statement is
to be scored either 1 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.

A. 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 1 ON THE CORRESPONDING SECTION OF THE DATA SHEET.

5. Dichotomization Procedures (i.e., for MSA-~applies to all
scales). (a) Using raw data scores (i.e., the actual number
circled by the respondent) via the Hafterson CUT program on the
CDC 3600, determine the point of least error f3? each item on the
content scales; (b) Using this point (i. e., between 1 and 2, or
between 2 and 3, or between 3 and A) rescore the items, via recode
cards, as 0,1 via the Hafterson MSA Program on the CDC 3600 to
determine which items form a scale. Run at both .01 and .05 level;
(c) For  Handicapped Persons Scale, items are scored 0 above the
column break, 1 below the column break. For all other Scale
scoring, the reverse is true. Items are scored 1 above the column
break, 0 below the column break; (d) Using the same procedure in
point 5: -a above, determine the CUT1points for the intensity com-
ponent of each item; (e) Enter the MSA Program with the CUT points
for the intensity component and scale as outlined in Point No. b
for content; (f) Adjusted total scores for content and intensipy.
Sum the dichotomized content and intensity scores (I.e., Q, 1) ob-.
tained by the above procedure for each respondent on those items
that scaled for both content and intensity. Maximum score will
be 1 x the number of the same items that scaled on both content
and intensity; (g) Zero Point. Using only the items that sealed
for both content and intensity, plot and determine the "zero
point" for each cultural_group (or other desired groupings) via
the method detailed on pages 221-23A by Guttman (1950).

 

By this procedure, the possible range of scores is from 0 to
22. Doubling the obtained score will approximate scores obtained
by the method of Yuker et al. (1960, p. 10).

CARD 1 Page 1-9

 

 

 

Column Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
A5 1 Handicapped Persons 1 - 1 Not strongly at all
thru thru Scale 2 - 2 Not very strongly
6A 20 Intensity 3 - 3 Fairly strongly
intensity? A - A Very strongly

 

65 3,A,6, Education Scale 1
thru 10,11, Traditional, 2
7A 12,13, Content Re— 3

A

1A,18, sponsesTV
19

Strongly disagree
Disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

 

llll
.1:me

 

'3
Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALEl INTENSITY,
COLUMNS‘A556A.

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 question is scored,
will be scored as follows:

If content score is 1 or A, score intensity A.
If content score is 2 or 3, score intensity just below the
mean intensity score for that item; i. e., mean intensity

of the group.

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 questionnaire; i. e. if respondent generally
scored intensity questions either A or 3, so that the median was
in between 3 and 3, score NO RESPONSE 2, and so forth.

 

fl!
Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALEl TRADITIONAL,
CONTENTJ‘COLUMNS'6557A.

1. Items are to be scored as circled by the respondent.
2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on Page 1-8,

Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score on1y those items
indicated above as applying to the traditional scale, content.

 

 

 

 

 

CARD 2 Page 2-1

Column— Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
1,2,3 Nation and Location Same as Card 1, page 1-1
A,5 Group Number 01 - 99
6,7 Respondent Number 01 - 99
8 Sex of Respondent Same as Card 1, page 1-1
9 Occupational Recode-

(General) Same as Card 1, page 1-1
10 Occupational Recode

(Green) Same as Card 1, page 1-1
11,12 Deck or Card Number 02
13,1A Project Director Same as Card 1, page 1-2a
15,16 Day of Administration 1 - 31
17,18 Month of Adminis-

tration l - 12
19,20 Year of Adminis-

tration Same as Card 1, Page 1-2a
21 Type of Adminis-

tration Same as Card 1, Page l-2b
22,23 Occupation of

Respondent Same as Card 1, Pages 1-2b,

1-3, l-A, 1-5, 1-6
2A 3,A,6, Education Scale, 1 - 1 Not-strongly at all
thru 10,11, Traditional, 2 - 2 Not very strongly
33 12,13, Intensity_ 3 - 3 Fairly strongly
1A,18, Responses* A - A Very strongly
19

 

*Instructions for Coder:

TENSITY,
l.

2.
Handicapped Persons Scale.

' COLUMNS 2A—33.
Items are to be scored exactly as circled.

EDUCATION SCALEleRADITIONAL IN-

Follow the procedures outlined in caps on Page 1-8,

Be sure to score only those items

Indicated above as belonging to the progressive scale.

CARD 2 Page 2-2

 

gfiigmn- 528211 C°de Recode

 

 

 

 

 

 

3A 1,2,5, Education Scale, 1 - l Strongly disagree
thru 7,8,9, Progressive, 2 - 2 Disagree
A3 15,16, Content 3 - 3 Agree
17,20 Responses“ A - A Strongly agree
AA 1,2,5, Education Scale, 1 - 1 Not strongly at all
thru 7,8,9, Progressive 2 - 2 Not very strongly
53 15,16, Intensity, 3 - 3 fairly strongly
17,20 Responses““ A - A Very strongly
5A,55 Raw S Value scale, 01 - 32
score Support score++ no score+
56,57 Raw C Value scale, 01 - 32
score Conformity no score+
score++
58,59 Raw R Value scale, 01 - 32
score Recognition no scoref
score++

 

“Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, CON-.
TENT; COLUMNS 3A-A3. *”

1. Items are to be scored exactly as circled.

2. Follow the procedures outlined in caps in page 1-8,.
Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items in-
diCated above as belonging to the progressive scale.

““Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALELPROGRESSIVEL
INTENSITY, COLUMNS AAa53.

Same as instructions for Education_Scale, Progressive
Content, page 2-1.

 

+All 99's must be rescored at the median of the distribution
for card punching, i.e., otherwise they add into the computations!

++Entires for columns 5A-65 are obtained through scoring ac-
cording to SRA Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values, Science
Research Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illinois,
1960. For scoring, coders should use the special keys adapted
from the SBA English edition of the scale. Although the summed
scores of the six value scales should total 90, scores between
8A and 95 are acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CARD 2 Page 2-3

Column- Item

Ques. Detail Code Recode

60,61 Raw I Value scale, Inde- 01-32
score pendence score‘"I no score“

62,63 Raw B Value scale, Benevo- 01 - 32
score lence score““ no score“

6A,65 Raw L Value scale, Leader- 01 - 32
score ship score““ no score“

66,67 Sum of Adjusted totals based 00 — ? (Check dich. for no.
item on item dichotomi- no score++ to use here)
scores, zation, H.P. Scale,

1-20 Content+
Content

68,69 Sum of Adjusted totals based 00 - ?
item on item dichotomi- no score++
scores zation, H.P. Scale
1 - 2O Intensityf

Intensity

70,71 Sum of Adjusted totals based 00 - ?
item on item dichotomi- no score++
scores zation, Education

3,A,6,10, Traditional Scale,
11,12,13, Content+
1A,18,19

72,73 Sum of Adjusted totals based 00 - ?
item on item dichotomi- no score++
scores zation, Education

3,A,6,10, Traditional Scale,
11,12,13, Intensity+
lA,l8,l9

 

“See footnote +, page 2-2.

““See footnote ++,

page 2-20

+See Card 1, page 1- 8, instruction No. 5- f, to ascertain
how adjusted total scores are obtained.

++A11 99's must be rescored at the median of distribution
for card punching, i.e., otherwise they add into the computations!

 

 

CARD 2 Page 2—u
Column- Item
Ques. Detail C°de Recode
7H.75 Sum of Adjusted totals based 00 - ?

item

scores
1323587!
8.9.15.
16,17,20

76,77 Sum of
item
scores

1:235:73
839915:
16,17,20

on item dichotomi-
zation, Education

Progressive Scale,
Content

 

Adjusted totals based
on item dichotomi-»
zation, Education
Progressive Scale,
Intensity

no»score**

OO - ?
no score**

 

*
See footnote +, page 2-3.

«a
See footnote ++, page 2-3.

 

 

 

CARD 3 Page 3—1
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
1,2,3 Nation and Location Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
A,5 Group Number 01 - 99
6,7 Respondent Number 01 - 99
8 Sex of Respondent Same as Card 1, Page 1—1
9 Occupational Recode
(General) Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
10 Occupational Recode
(Green) Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
11,12 Deck or Card Number 03
13,1” Project Director Same as Card 1, Page 1-2a
15,16 Day of Administration 1 - 31
17,18 Month of Administration 1 - 12
19,20 Year of Administration Same as Card 1, Page l-2a
21 Type of Administration Same as Card 1, Page l-2b
22,23 Occupation of Respondent Same as Card 1, Pages l-2b,
1-3, 1"“, 1-5’ 1-6
2A 1A Level of Educ. Contact* Best
Q'aire l - 1 Elem. School
2 - 2 Sec. School
3 - 3 University'
u - A Other as specified
25' is Next Best
Q'aire 1 - 1
2 - 2
3 _ 3 Same
A - A

 

*If Box A, B, and C are not filled in, attempt to score

from examining questions 2-6.

If unable to answer, score +.

CARD 3 Page 3-2

 

gaigmn- $22211 Code Recode

 

26 10 Third Best
Q'aire

 

SAME

tWNH

1

2

3

u

27 2(1-9) Recode from Column 1 thru g,-

No. 30, Question 1 - Yes, Personal

2(1-9) 2 - No, Personal
+ - No contact
.6.
l
2
+

thru-§_=

- Yes, Impersonal
.- No, Impersonalr
- No Contact

28 2(1-9) Recode from Column
No. 30, Question
2(1-9)

29 Open

0
‘O
(D
:3

30 2(1-9) Type of Educational
thru Q'aire Contact. Score each of
38 these alternatives as:

Yes - 1 (i.e., if
circled)
(i.e., if-
uncircled)
OR -‘1 No Response

Father, etc-
~Some relative
Self

Friend
Neighbor
.Studied

Know a little
Nothing
Other‘

No -.

[N

Never *
months
months to
months
months to
ayear

year to
years
.years to
years

years to

10 years

Over 10 years
Over 15 years

39 3 Amount of Contact with
Q'aire Education

I
KOO) ‘1 0\ U1 4: (”MI-4

\OCD N 0\ U1 .t' WNH \ooosloxuuerI-J
mmwwI-IHoxoxww

 

 

CARD 3 Page 3-3
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
#0 H Percent of income 1 - 2 Less than 10% *
Q'aire from Education 2 - 3 10 to 25%
3 - u 25 to 50%
u - 5 50 to 75%
5 — 6 75 to 100%
6 - 1 No work
41 5 Enjoyment of Edu- 1 - 2 Disliked *
Q'aire cational Work 2 - 3 Not much
3 - 4 Somewhat
H - 5 Enjoyed
5 - 1 No Experience
M2 6 Alternative Work 1 - 3 Unavailable. *
Q'aire 2 - 1 Not acceptable
3 - 5 Not quite acceptable
4 - 6 Acceptable
5 - u No information
6 - 2 No experience
NOTE: Questions 7 and 8 omitted.
A3,uu 9 Age 20 - 20 years
Q'aire 21 - 21
£0 - no
MS 10 Community in which 1 - 4 City *
Q'aire reared. If more than- 2.- 3 City subrub
one is checked try to 3 - 2 Country town
determine in which one A - 1 Country
the respondent spent 5 - 5 Other
most of the time. If + - No response
impossible, try to
choose a median (i.e.,
country, city, score
country town)
46 11 Employment community City *
Q'aire City suburb

+UTJ’=WNI'-‘

kill-”Um:

Country town
Country
Other

No response

 

 

CARD 3 Page 3—u
Column- Item
N7 12 Recent Residence l - U City *
Q'aire 2 - 3 City suburb
3 - 2 Country town
u - 1 Country
5 - 5 Other
+ - No response
#8 13 Marital Status 1 - 5 Married» *
Q'aire 2 - 1 Single
3 - 2 Divorced
u - 3 Widowed
5 - h Separated
+ - No response
99,501 in Number of Children. If 1 — 01
Q'aire blank, check Ques. 13. 2 - 02'
If single, score 99; .
if married, leave .
blank. DO NOT 10 - 10
USE 99!
51,52 15 Yearly Income 01 - Less than $1,000 *
(A or B) If no response, 02 - $1,000 to $1,999
Q'aire do not score 22! 03 - $2,000 to $2,999
10,- $9,000 to $9.999
to
22 - $21,000 and over
53 16 Comparative Income 1 - 5 Much lower *
Q'aire 2 - 4 Lower
3 - 3 About the same
H'- 2 Higher
5 - 1 Much higher-
6 - 8 No opinion-
+ _,+ No response
5A,55 17 Brothers 1 - 01
Q'aire If the respondent 2 - 02
answers only-one .
question (17 or 18) .
and other is blank, 10 - 10

assume it to be zero.
Do Not Score No
Response 99!

 

 

CARD 3 Page 3-5
Column— Item
Ques. Detailr Code Recode
56,57 18 Sisters Same as number of
Q'aire brothers
58.59 None Siblings--Obtain by 1 - 01
summing Questions 17 .
& 18, Columns 5A,55 15 - 15
and 56,57
60 19 Father's Income: Com- 1 - 5 Much lower *
Q'aire parative 2 - A Lower
3 - 3 About the same
A - 2 Higher
5 - 1 Much higher
6 - 8 No opinion
61 20 Religion 1 - 1 Roman Catholic
Q'aire 2 — 2 Protestant
3 - 3 Jewish
A - h None
5 - 5 Other
+ - No response
62 21 Importance of Religion 1 - 1 Not very *
Q'aire Self statement 2 - 2 'Fairly
3 - 3 Very
63 22 Amount of personal 1 - 1 None *
Q'aire relationship on the 2 - 2 Less than 10%
job 3 - 3 10 to 30%
A - M 30 to 50%
5 - 5 50 to 70%
6 - 6 70 to 90%
7 - 7 Over 90%
8 - 8 No contact
69 23 Importance of Personal 1 - 1 Not at all *
Q'aire, relationships on the 2 - 2 Not very
job 3 -.3 Fairly
u - A Very

CARD 3

Page 3-6

 

Column-
Ques.

Item
Detail

Code

Recode

 

65 2h
Q'aire

66 25
Q'aire

67 26-
Q'aire

68 27
Q'aire

69 28
Q'aire

70 29
Q'aire

Diffusion of Job
Relationships

Number of Social
Classes

Social Class Position:
Self

Social Class Position:
Father

Amount of Education.

If more than one answer
is circled, choose. the
highest amount or
determine the appropri-
ate answer.

Education:. Self-

Comparative‘

+\]O\U'|J:'WND-‘

+U'l-I='WNI—‘ oxc-wmr-I

+1:me

U'l-C'wI'UH \Omflmm-EUUNH

+N'IO\U'|J='WNI-‘

\J'l-lrme \OCDNmU'l-IL'UUNH

+CDJ=WNH mthl-J

4’th!“

None *
Less than 10%

10 to 30%

30 to 50%

50 to 70%

up to 90%

Over 90%

No response

None or one *
Two

Three

More than three

No opinion

Lower *
Middle

Upper

Other

No Opinion

No response

Lower *
Middle

Upper

Other:

No response

Three years or less *
Six years or less
Nine years or less
Twelve years or less
Some college

Degree

Work beyond degree
Advanced degree.
Other

Much less *
Less

Average

More.

Much more

 

 

CARD 3 Page 3-7
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
71 30 Education: Father- 1 - 1 Much less *
Q'aire Comparative 2 - 2 Less
3 - 3 Average
A - A More
5 -’5 Much more
72 31 Type of Living 1 - 1 Rent house *
Q'aire Arrangement 2 - 2 Rent apartment
3 - 3 Rent room
A - A Purchase room and
board
5 -.5 Own apartment
6 - 6 Own house
7 - 7 Other
73 32 Rent per month 1 - $20 or less *
(A or B) 2 - 21 - A0 (dollars)
3 - Al - 75
A - 76 - 125
5 - 126 - 200
6 - 201 - 300
7 - 300 or more
+ - + No response

 

 

CARD A PageA-l
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
1,2,3 Nation and Location Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
A,5 Group Number 01 - 99
6,7 Respondent Number 01 - 99
8 Sex of Respondent Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
9 Occupational Recode
(General) Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
10 Occupational Recode
(Green) Same as Card 1, Page 1-1
11,12 Deck or Card Number 0A
1,31A Project Director Same as Card 1, Page l-wa
15,16 Day of Administration 1 - 31
17,18 Month of Administration 1 - 12
19,20 Year of Administration Same as Card 1, Page l-2a
21. Type of Administration Same as Card 1, Page 1-2b
22,23 Occupation of Respondent Same.as Card 1, Pages 1-2b,
1'3: 1’“: 1‘5: 1’6
2A 33-1 Satisfaction with l - Poor *
Elementary Schools 2 - Fair
3 - Good
A - Excellent**
25 33-2 Satisfaction with
Secondary schools Same as ** *
26 33-3 Satisfaction with
Universities Same as ** *
27 3A-A Satisfaction with
Businessmen Same as ** *
28 33-5 Satisfaction with
Labor Same as ** *

 

 

CARD A Page A-2
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
29 33-6 Satisfaction with
Government Same as ** a
30 33-7 Satisfaction with
Health Service Same as ** *
31 33-8 Satisfaction with
Churches Same as ** a
32 3A Time in Present 1 - 1 Less than a year *
Community 2 - 2 One to two years
3 - 3 Three to six years
A - A Seven to ten years
5 - 5 Over ten years
33 35 Residency Change 1 - 1 Yes
2 - 2 No
+ - + No response
3A 36 Employment Change 1 - 1 Yes
2 - 2 No
+ - + No response
35 37 Frequency of Residency 1 - 1 None *
Change (last ten 2 - 2 One time
years) 3 - 3 Two to three times
A - A Four to six times
5 - 5 Seven to ten times
6 - 6 Over ten times
36 38 Frequency of Job 1 - 1 None *
Change (last ten 2 - 2 One time
years) 3 - 3 Two to three times
A - A Four to six times
5 - 5 Seven to ten times
6 - 6 Over ten times.
37,38 39 Occupation (Specific) Same as Card 1, Pages l-2b,
1-3, 1-A, 1-5, 1-6

 

uIf feasible, rescore all 8's at median of distribution for
further data analysis after looking at the frequency distribution
from the computer print out, i.e., would require recoding or card

punching.

CARD A

Page A-3

 

Column-

Ques.

Item
Detail

Code

 

39

A0

A1

A2

“3

AA

“5

A6

A0

A1

A2

“3

AA

A5

A6

A7

Observance of Religious
Rules

Health Practice Change

Child Rearing Practices
Change

Birth Control Practices

Change of Political
Leaders

Aid to Education

Personal Change--Waysq

Commitment to Rules

UleNl-J bWNH WtWNi—J U'ltUJNI-J kWNH UltWNI-J Una-Dump tWNH

IIIII III'I IIII IIIII IIIII I'll
U'Ilrme I-‘Nwt i-‘NLAJ-C'U'I HNWJ=U1 «(=me l-‘NWkkfl WHN-t'U'l :WNH

Seldom
Sometimes
Usually
Almost always

Yes

Maybe
Probably not
No

Don't know

Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Don't know
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree

Always wrong
Usually wrong
Probably right
Always right

Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Don't know
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree

Strongly agree
Slightly agree
Don't know
Slightly disagree
Strongly disagree

Very easy

Somewhat easy
Slightly difficult
Very difficult

Agree strongly
Agree slightly
Don't know
Disagree slightly
Disagree strongly

Recode

CARD A Page A-A

 

 

Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
A7 A8 Routine Job Duties l - 1 Agree strongly *
2 - 2 Agree slightly
3 - 3 Dont' know
A - A Disagree slightly
5 - 5 Disagree strongly
A8 A9 Parental Ties Same *
A9 50 Helpfulness to Friends
Vs. others Same *
50 51 Planning for Future Same *
51 52 Necessary for Happiness l - 1 Nothing *
2 - 2 Money
3 - 3 Friends
A - A Job '
5 - 5 Health
6 - 6 Other
52 53 Possibility of l - Nothing *
Happiness 2 - Marriage & Divorce
3 — Friends:
A - Religion (Satisfaction
with life)
5 - Money
6 - Job
7 - Education
8 - Health (Mental &
Physical)
9 - No response

HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUESTIONNAIRE

Blind *
Partially blind

Deaf (and mute)
Partially deaf,
crippled

Disfigured

Spastic

Speech

None

53 1 Primary Contact Group
Q-HP

\oooszaxmzwmI-I
I I l I I I l I I
oooqmmzwmw

 

 

CARD A Page A-5
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
5A 2 Other Contact Groups If there was no con— *
Q-HP tact and questions are
not answered, score 9.
The score for this
question is the sum of
the response alternatives
circled, i.e., scores can
range from g to 8.
55-57 Open Open
58 3 Varieties of Contact l - 6 Father, etc. *
Q-HP with Handicapped 8<EEE2 - 5 Other relativ
Persons. 3 - A Worked er-
If a single response A - 3 Friend sonal
is circled, use the 7<EEE5 - 2 Studied
digit-to-digit system. 6 - 1 Little imper-
If more than one is 7 - 9 Self sonal
circled use the com-
bined categories and
code as 1_or Q.
59 A Amount of Contact l - 1 Less than ten *
Q-HP 2 - 2 Ten to fifty
3 - 3 Fifty to 100
A - A 100 to 500
5 - 5 Over 500
60 5 Ease of Avoidance 1 - 1 Great difficulty *
Q-HP 2 - 2 Considerable difficulty
3 - 3 Some inconvenience
A - A No inconvenience
61 6 Material Gain from 1 - 1 Paid '
Q-HP Contact 2 - 2 Credit
3 - 3 No rewards
A - A Paid and_credit
62 7 Percent of Income from 1 - 1 Less than 101 *
Q-HP Work with Handicapped 2 - 2 10 to 25$
3 - 3 25 to 50%
A - u. 50 to 75$
5 - 5 Over 75%
6 - 6

If 3 is circled in
No. 6 or if they have
never worked with
handicapped

 

 

 

 

 

 

CARD A Page A-6
Column- Item
Ques. Detail Code Recode
63 8 Feelings About Contact l - 1 Disliked, great *
Q-HP 2 - 2 Disliked, little
3 - 3 liked, some
A - A Definitely en-
joyed
6A 9 Amount of Contant with 1 - 1 Less than 10 *
Q-HP Mentally Retarded 2 - 2 10 to 50
3 - 3 50 to 100
A - A 100 to 500
5 - 5 Over 500
65 10 : Amount of Contact with Same .
Q-HP Emotionally 111
66,67 Sum of Handicapped Persons 00 - 80
item Scale. Total Con-t Do Not Use 22}
scores tent Raw score entry
1 - 20 on transcription
Content sheet
68,69 Sum of Handicapped Persons 00 - 80
item Scale. Total 13: Do Not Use 22*
scores tensity Raw score
1 - 20 entry on transcrip-
Intensity tion sheet
70,71 Sum of Education Scale, 00 - A0
item Traditional, Raw Do Not Use 22}
scores Content score entry
3,A,6, on transcription
10,11, sheet
12,13,
1A,18,19
72,73 Sum of Education Scale, 00 - A0
item Traditional, Raw Do Not Use 92!
scores Intensity soore entry
3,A,6, on transcription
10,11, sheet
12,13,

 

 

CARD A Page A-7
Column- Item
Ques. Detail 0°99 Recode
7A,75 Sum of Education Scale, Pro- 00 - A0

75.77

item
scores
19295!
7, 09!
15,16,
17,20

Sum of
item

scores
1:235:
7.8.9.
15,16,
17,20

gressive, Raw Content,
score entry on
transcription sheet

Education Scale, Pro-
gressive, Raw Inten-

sity, score entry on

transcription sheet

Do Not Use 22*

00 - A0
Do Not Use 29!

APPENDIX B-3

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS AND FCC I AND FCC II
VARIABLE-COMPUTER PRINT-OUT CODE FORMS

267

268

ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION OF HANDICAPPED
AND NON-HANDICAPPED PERSONS:
A CROSS-CULTURAL STUDY

MICHIGAN STUDY

VARIABLE DESCRIPTION BY:
1. IBM Card and Column
Location

2. Field No. from FCC I
and II programs

3. Individual Item and
Scale Location

A. Category: type of
variable

5. Name: item content

1266

FCC I

 

 

Card 1
Field Variable
No. Question Name Column
1 Face Sheet of
Scales Sex 8
2 39 Q'aire Special Education
Occupation 9
Card 2

First 23 Columns SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 12 (Card No.)

Card 3
3 'l-A-Q'aire Level of Educ.
Contact-First 2A
A 3-Q'aire Contact-(Amount of
- ' Education) 39
5 A-Q'aire Contact-(Gain from
' Education) A0
6 5-Q'aire Contact-(Enjoyment-
Education) Al
7 6-Q'aire Contact-(Alternatives
to Education) A2
8 lO-Q'aire Early Youth Community A5
9 lB-Q'aire Marital Status A8
10 2l-Q'aire Religion (Importance) 62
ll 28-Q'aire Education (Self-
amount) 69
Card A
12 33-l-Q'a1re Institutional satis-

faction (Elem. Sch.) 2A

13 33-2-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Sec. Sch.) 25

FCC I (Continued)

 

 

Ffigld Question Va§éggle Column
1A 33-3-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Universities) 26
15 33-A-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Businessmen) 27
16 33-5-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Labor) 28
17 33-6-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Government) 29
18 33-7-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Health Services) 3O
19 33—8-Q'aire Institutional satis-
faction (Churches) 31
20 AO-Q'aire Religiousity (norm-
conformity) 39
21 AI-Q'aire Change orientation
(Health-practice) A0
22 A2-Q'aire Change orientation
(Child rearing) A1
23 A3-Q'aire Change orientation
(Birth control) A2
2A A5-Q'aire Education (Aid to) AA
25 A6-Q'aire Change orientation (Self) A5
26 A7-Q'aire Change orientation (self-
rule adherence) A6
27 A8-Q'aire Change orientation (self-
routine job) A7
28 50-Q'aire Personalism (Other
orientation) A9
29 51-Q'aire Future Orientation
(Planning) 50

FCC I (Continued)

 

 

Ffigld Question Va§1ggle Column
30 3-Q-HP Contact (Varieties) 58
31 A-Q-HP Contact (Amount) 59
32 S-Q-HP Contact (Ease of

avoidance) 60
33 6-Q-HP Contact (Gain from) 61
3A 8-Q-HP Contact (Enjoyment of) 63
35 9-Q-HP Contact (Mentally

retarded) 6A
36 lo-Q-HP Contact (Emotionally

disturbed) 55

FCC II

 

Field Variable

 

No. Question Name Column
Card 2
1 Value Scale Support Value 5A,55
2 Value Scale Conformity Value 56,57
3 Value Scale Recognition Value
(comparative) 58,59
A Value Scale Independent Value 60,61
5 Value Scale Benevolence Value 62,63
6 Value Scale Leadership Value
(comparative) 6A,65
Card 3
7 9 Q'aire Age. A3,AA
Card A
8 39 Q'aire Occupation (specific) 37,38
9 HP Scale HP Total Content
Raw Score 66,67
10 HP Scale HP Total Intensity
Raw Score 68,69
11 Education Scale Trad. Educ. Total
ContentfiRaw Score 70,71
12 Education Scale Trad. Educ. Total
Intensit Raw
Score 72.73-
13 Education Scale Prog. Educ. Total
Content Raw Score 7A,75
1A Education Scale Prog. Educ. Total

 

 

Intensity Raw

Score

76.77

APPENDIX B-A

DATA TRANSCRIPTION SHEET

273

ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION:

INTERNATIONAL STUDY

 

Education Scale—-

Education Scale--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1266

 

 

 

Haggiizppggrgeisons Traditional Progressive
Card 1 Card 2 Card 1 Card 2

C7331)” “€332?” 073331?" “732??” C7325? “732??”
l _____(25) _____(A5) 3. (6A) _____(25) 1. _____(35) _____(A5)
2._____(26) _____(A6) A. (66) _____(26) 2._____(36) _____(A6)
3._____ ‘_____ 6‘_____(67) _____(27) 5._____(37) _____(A7)
A.______ _____ 10._____(68) _____(28) 7 _____(38) _____(A8)
5._____ __ 11.___(69) ____(29) 8.______(39) _____(A9)
6._____ '_____ 122_____(70) _____(30) 9 _____(A0) _____(50)
7._____ ___g_ 13._____(71) _____(31) 15._____(A1) _____(51)
8._______ __ 1n.______(72) ___(32)'16.____(u2) ______(52)
9._____ _____ 18._____(73) _____(33) l7._____fiA3) _____f53)
10._____ ______(5A) l9._______(7A) _____(3A) 20._____(AA) _____(5A)
11._____ __
12._____ __ __ __ ______ __
13._____ __
1A.____ ‘_____
15 ____(39) _____(59)
'16 _____ __
17 ______ ______ Location
18._____ ._____ Group
l9._____ ._____ Respondent No.
2o.____(AA) ______(6A)

"AAAAAAAAAT