A GUTTMAN FACE! ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD" THE MENTALLY RETARDED l-N THE'FEDERAL-L . ¥ : . REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: CON-TENT, “ > I STRUCTURE AND DETERMINANTS '- Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. ' . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LAWRENCE EUGENE HARRELSON i 1970 - LIBRA 5:14 Mkhighn State i _ nit/”Ci Si ty ' m llNH”!!!”If"!IllI”!!!”MINI!”Ill/WIN”!!!Will/I 2931 This is to certify that the thesis entitled A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD ' THE MENTALLY RETARDED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: CONTENT ,'1 STRUCTURE AND DETERMINANTS presented by Lawrence Eugene Harrelson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Counseling, Personnel Services & Educational Psychology (Jag/L (’ (LEV 7/(4/1 \_ / qutfi‘ professor Date January 29, 1970 0-169 Ybrillfifr‘ltll. illitiArltl rib: ABSTRACT A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MENTALLY RETARDED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: CONTENT, STRUCTURE AND DETERMINANTS By Lawrence Eugene Harrelson Problem Culturally dependent attitudes in part determine whether the mentally retarded obtain the encouragement and guidance necessary for socially useful and indepen— dent lives. This study constituted part of a compre— hensive effort to research attitudes toward the retarded hiseveral nations, using similar samples and a common hmtrument derived from Guttman's facet theory.1 The mnpose was to investigate attitudes toward mental re— tardation, as well as to assess the predictive validity of certain hypothesized determinants of attitudes, with selected groups in West Germany, included in the inter— national study because of its similarity to the United States in economic and technological development and difference in language, history, and educational pro— visions for the retarded. Lawrence Eugene Harrelson Methodology The Attitude Behavior Scale—Mental Retardation (ABS—MR) was constructed according to considerations of mmtmanis facet theory of attitude structure which specifies that an attitude universe can be sub—structured hmo attitude levels which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common, i.e., attitude levels close to each other in the semantic scale of their definitions will also be close statistically and the resulting matrix of attitude level inter—correlations will assume a simplex ordering. Accepting Guttman's definition of attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to somee thing," Jordan employed a five facet structure, each facet containing a strong and weak element, to construct a scale measuring six levels of attitude interaction with the mentally retarded. Each level contained one more strong element than its predecessor on an abstract— impersonal to concrete—behavioral continuum, and the six ABS—MR levels were called (1) Societal Stereotype, (2) Societal Interactive Norm, (3) Personal Moral Evalu- ation, (A) Personal Hypothetical Behavior, (5) Personal Feelings, and (6) Actual Personal Behavior. Prelimi_ rmry work with the ABS—MR in the United States and Belize (British Honduras) suggested reliability on \ apar with other attitude scales, and its ability Lawrence Eugene Harrelson to differentiate groups chosen on the basis of pre— sumed differences-in attitudes toward the retarded provided support for concurrent validity. In addition, simplex orderings, predicted by facet theory, were obtained in both nations, providing support for the hypothesis of an invariate structure of attitudes toward the retarded across cultures. Attitude content and intensity components were com— bined into one composite criterion score in a German translation of the ABS—MR used to compare the attitudes of West German samples of (a) teachers of the retarded, (b) regular teachers, (c) parents of the retarded, (d) parents of normals, and (e) manager—executives in rela— tionship to four classes of hypothesized determinants mw/or predictors of attitudes: (a) contact, (b) know- ledge, (c) values, and (d) demographic factors. Results Combining content and intensity scores enhanced reliability estimates, and these estimates, as well as the ordering of scale level scores and simplex correla— tion matrices, were very similar to those obtained in the U.S. and Belize, supporting the cross—cultural I utility of facet theory. The multidimensional nature of ABS—MR attitudes was repeatedly demonstrated. Education, for example, was primarily related to the more abstract—impersonal WW, 73.7“,” Hum,“ Lawrence Eugene Harrelson levels, while age was most strongly related at the concrete—personal levels. Most surprising, in View of the historical stereotype of the authoritarian German personality, was the tendency of the German subjects to see little relationship between ABS—MR attitudes attri— buted to others and their own expressed attitudes and behavior. In addition, several independent variables, nwst notably contact with the retarded, were negatively related to the subject's perceptions of others' atti— tudes and positively to perceptions of their own attitudes. ABS—MR multidimensionality was further demonstrated when similar total scores for the special teachers and parents of normals were found to be made up of strikingly dissimilar individual scale level scores. A number of limitations of the present study and recommendations for further research were listed. K‘— 1The international study is being directed by John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University. no _;u_ DC and ab __________,_‘ A GUTTMAN FACET ANALYSIS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD THE MENTALLY RETARDED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY: CONTENT, STRUCTURE AND.DETERMINANTS By Lawrence Eugene Harrelson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1970 .: .s .: .s .I .» 4. s. . .__ .. ’2 w. r” a e .e n; a .v 4 hh. . _ {y . e 5 . Q~ “J :5 _ . h w . v. . 1. . .«u .. . «J at .7. .nu .J . 4 \4 a» .n a . .«u my .1. .3 cv .nu . ha Co A: . . I. A... “a .xu a» at. "E w . .3 3.. w u .. r“ A: a. . ”a AC at nu .. . .. . A v r A. at Wu .. a Pt‘ 7“ u v .F u u t” A: 1.» ~ .. Av . _ «.3 ~ _ w a e - .n u u y I» C. , _ z. :. i. , r/ ..._ I n: .1 MIN 3 . . u...” .. R” S. n ... .. 642770 74 ~70 i PREFACE i This study is one of a series jointly designed by i several investigators (Erb, 1969; Gottlieb, I970; Hamersma, 1969; Maierle, I969; Morin, I969, Whitman, 1970) as an example of the “project” approach to graduate research. Acommon use of instrumentation and theoretical material, as well as technical and analysis procedures, was there— fore both necessary and desirable. The authors collaborated in many aspects although the data and certain design, procedural, and analysis methods were different in each study. The interpretations of data in each study are those of the individual authors. ii E . e r" C. w . r: C ... C .D . v A: r 3. 0 v C. S w.” .3 .Q at. .ru w . w“ AG . .. _ _ "H. a i. e r n.. e uv. :I‘ e C v. . a. u. C a “a a m 0 a Tu 0 D“ .Q a... .. . S. r” .2 3 15 AC .D. r u a5 a» hi my .D .nu CO e Tv T C r - ...; WA. .r u n . Av "Ev cc 3 . l n. hi. hi CD Vt O h n ,. at. C . s "V1 Vt. .vu .. l n .u 0 ..S «T. C w. 0 AC 3 . 0 Av rm D. h... D: Wt. Z n I n; . .... Tn ..l. I D. «Q 3 ad I. . fl . .. . L14 a WV u 1T. u‘_ D» —‘_ utv a a fig flfa _ _ w.“ 31‘ s ‘rys 0 Ac 5 I.“ H u . . Qt- Z .L Q\ .5 «... C .2 w; .. . u. a; . . w. L. ... " ... . m ... .n.“ ...... ..AJ .ww. ..- } u s... u. ...u ... . u .v... ... .. ... wl ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted primarily to Drs. John E. Jordan and Hartmut Horn for their invaluable assistance. Dr. Jordan served as chairman of my doctoral committee and guided the entire research effort from inception to completion, while Dr. Horn, Professor of Special Education and Edu— cational Psychology at the Ruhr College of Education in Dortmund, was almost wholly responsible for instrument translation, sampling, and data collection in Germany. I would also like to express my appreciation to Um remaining members of my committee, Drs. Harvey F. Clarizio, Gregory A. Miller, and Albert I. Rabin, for their support and suggestions. I am grateful, too, to Dr. Stewart G. Armitage, whef of Psychology Service, Battle Creek, Michigan V.A. Hospital, for his patience in allowing me time to complete the research. Finally, I would like to thank my wife Renate and daughter Kristin for the additional motivation they provided. rt. .. a: At T. e . . . . A: .3 e. E ... ..u .Q Ca nv 2.. Av .S .0 . ... ”t. .y .... .n.. :u s s a: IL ..L n t av .e I. e . wJ .: «x» . E nun. —._ — ~ ... . ... a . ...._ _ t. .. m w ___._.. .... .. TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. Statement of the Problem. II. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation Self Attitudes . . . . Peer and Community Attitudes Teacher Attitudes . . Parental Attitudes. Employer Attitudes. Attitude Change. Conclusion . Methodological Considerations in Cross— Cultural Research . . . . . Relevancy: Mental Retardation in Germany . . . . . Measurement: Dimensions of Attitudes. . . . Equivalency iv Page ii iii viii xi xii 37 38 43 A6 — r—~ fun Fay Y. .. — u. - .fN . u ;_~ 7 p :\ E : .\~ A . H .n“ .. V.” 2. .3 .3 2. ... w. .3 . A .1 e .... .L .L .t .L ..C 2w .1» v... ..L .Q .L e .Tv .l .r. ...... 3.3 m. ........L .. w” 3 . .. a; .3” :33 a a a a..\. 9.0 a 5; «GM «can .‘tn w. ... w. E . . . . w H S e I a. .. w“ ... . O u.” ..t. e .1. 7; xi. l. l. l. xi xi 1 l .1 .v n... ”a nu .nu AC A: «v ... n». a» .nu 4m av ... . w... n; .u . . w; W. e Q» at. e QC e e e e n...” P.(\ n5... r” .-.~“..._ ... as... ..1».....A ..u C.C Wt DRDR Ru PR DP. Ru DB. R R ”L .... C. .Q n. p u. M. .. L 3.. ac .. w.“ 5 Ch 2. 2.. .H. ... 3.. . i «G .i. ~\t. nun fl\u WW. ... . .. \tlv gr. wv.‘ v - My .E. Page Chapter III. INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES . . . . . 49' Facet Theory and the ABS— MR Scale (Criterion) . . . . . . 50 Guttman' s Four Level Theory. . . . 50 Jordan's Six Level Adaptation . . . 5Li Intensity. . . . . . 62 Standardization Study. . . . . . . 63 Validity . . . . . . . . . . 6A Reliability . . . 71 Combining Content and Intensity . . 74' Instrument Limitations . . . . . 75 Independent Variables. . . . . . . 79 Demographic Variables. . . . . . 79 I Change Orientation. . . . . . 80 Educational Aid and Planning . . . 80 Contact With Handicapped Persons . . 8O ‘ Efficacy . . . 8l ; «.Knowledge About Mental Retardation . 82 German Revisions . . . . . . . . 83 IV. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES. . . . . 85 Sample. . . . . . . 85 Major Research Hypotheses . . . . . 92 Original Hypotheses . . . . . . 92 Relating Attitudes and Efficacy . . 93 Relating Attitudes and Knowledge . . 93 Relating Attitudes and Contact. . . 93 Relating Attitudes and Religiosity . 94 Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables. . . . . . 9A Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation . . . . . . 95 Relating Attitudes to Opinions on Educational Aid and Planning . . 95 Relating Attitudes and Group Membership . . . . . . . . 95 Relating Attitudes and Multi— dimensionality . . . . . . . 95 . v w . 7.. A: .3 at» P3 ac :u .. _ .. . _. . .3 AC A: n J .4“ .fl“ ..t. 9.. «in ...v: na.e hi .v.1u.v a» .v....t h..t e a 2. F. .... a «my a ... a. ..\.... a .Q A: 3C 5 DR . .l ... .i. .... ... wl. .... .... E e e e a» E e e e In .1 .1 .1 .3 Eu DA sh“ in v Summary Probl F I .ela' Instr Page Chapter Additional Hypotheses. . . . . . . 95 Relating Attitudes and Additional Group Variables. . . . . . . 97 Relating Attitudes and Level of Retardation . . . . . . . . 98 Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . 98 Descriptive Statistics . . . . . 99 Correlational Statistics. . . . 99 Analysis of Variance Statistics . . lOO Simplex Approximation Test . . . . 102 Significance Level. . . . . . . 105 V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . lO8 ABS— MR Reliability. . . . . . . lO8 Major Research Hypotheses . . . . . ll2 Relating Attitudes and Efficacy . . ll3 Relating Attitudes and Knowledge . . llS Relating Attitudes and Contact. . . ll7 Relating Attitudes and Religiosity . I29 Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables. . . . . . l3l Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation . . . . . . lAO Relating Attitudes to Opinion on Educational Aid and Planning . . 143 Relating Attitudes and Group Membership . . . . . . . 1A8 Relating Attitudes and Multi— dimensionality . . . . . . . 153 Relating Attitudes and Additional Group Variables. . . . . . . 161 Relating Attitudes and Level of Retardation . . . . . . . . 169 VI. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 172 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . I72 Problem . . . . . . . . 172 Related Research . . . . . ., . 173 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . 175 Design and Analysis . . . . . . 179 Results . . . . . . . . . . 180 vi ... u... _ Q» .3. LC .3 . . A. _: .v «v A: .v w. . v _. S. 2. C. 2. u . a A c _ . . _ . . . . _ . Ly 2v Ly 2v 2v .....“2“3. 2.. _. w. A; «J .— a. ‘1 A firs—w — w w........5.. Va~~ ‘ \ -c. ‘~---.v.. Chapter Discussion of Results. ABS—MR Reliability. Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Relating Attitudes Variables. Relating Attitudes Orientation Relating Attitudes Educational Aid Relating Attitudes Membership Relating Attitudes dimensionality Relating Attitudes Group Variables. and and and and and and Efficacy Knowledge Contact. Religiosity Demographic Change to Opinions on and and and and Planning Group Multi— Additional 3 Recommendations for Further Research. REFERENCES. APPENDICES. Criterion Instrumentation Independent Variable Instrumentation. Cross-Cultural Aspects Analysis Hypotheses Theory. Page 191 191 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 206 209 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 219 232 aromatic“ C 1: Character 2 is for CI“: Six Level Groups - Expirically Lattices 1.35419. HOSFt Combined German Sa 139-113 Conte Item-to—s German 83. ASHER—Effie German Sa iBS~iR~Knoxvl erman Sa ABS~MR Inten Content a .ount of ersons f .—.. -—-————. —-—.-v_~__. ‘ Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES Hypothetical Matrix of Level- by— level Correlations Illustrating Simplex Characteristics . Correlation Matrices of Conjoint Struction for Standardization Groups on the Six Level ABS—MR . . . . . . . . Sample Sizes, Means, F Tests and Multiple Means Results for the ABS—MR for the SER, ED 200, and Belize Samples. . . Hoyt Reliability Coefficients for ABS— MR Standardization Groups. . . . 92's for Original and Ordered Matrices on Six Level ABS— MR for Standardization Groups . . . . . Empirically and Intuitively Ordered ABS—MR Matrices for Standardization Groups ABS— MR Hoyt Reliabilities for Content and Combined Content— intensity Scores for German Samples . . . . . . . ABS—MR Content and Combined Content—intensity Item—to—sub—scale Mean Correlations for German Samples . . . . . . ABS— —MR—Efficacy Variable Correlations for German Samples . . . ~ ABS— MR——Know1edge Variable Correlations for German Samples . ABS— MR Intensity, Content, and Combined Content and Intensity Correlations with Amount of Contact with Mentally Retarded Persons for German Samples . . . - Page SA 66 7O 73 104 106 llO lll llA ll6 ll8 .1 e .. e : _ r. .C a t 5 .\t C: e .t ... T. S S .L S C #51 e F" at - T r“ .3 .e C. Cc . r. n e . e a . e a - U. e b S t u - n 5 At 0 a .Y. e e 2 S C e S a S a . . s P C S r C S .J. . AU e S ..It e S ..I. IV n Nu. .1. e O I .3 . 4 n. m. r“ .5 a» e e n E. e to .u e 30 u e SQ C e . .Q t wQ a e ..I. Fv Vv n. «C C f.. a A... ... .. .1. C .. . . . in nu .1. A. .9 .1. An S h. l .1. An v.1 n n v.1. .F. r C. C a . ... _ w. . C. a . .L m? . TL D. . .1 D. . R1. 0 r D. a e e e W. LL P. J .1 .11.. ... ..m it 2.. n1 .4“ m. 3.. w... 24 .1. Vi Bum FL. tot. Ru Do. a 01 st .7 DH IV D. ..L Sq .... 0 9 V. n. A: Y. E T. e V... a ..h. at nu. .L 2» ..h. 0 a ....m. a; a ... e 3. mm MIA 5 a ..t 0 V" C Q» . ... 3 . . . . AJ . ..KC _ T. . .. QL . at S . O «\u . Mn... 8 MD S . R P An. whit. ~\u n\L N\» S ..\y QL (L Qk QL II QM ..Hg ‘Hy 51. ~1. ‘Hu HR~ 5.3 ND. NW. 5/. DOV In .... K: 1L. . . C... .n... . n An Q. EL. _ . .. .__—.__.__.,.__.~.__.____ Table l2. 13. 14. 15. 16. 1% l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. ABS—MR Intensity Score-—Amount—of—contact with Non—retarded Disabled Persons Correlations for Total German Sample . . . . . . . ABS—MR Correlations with Amount and Enjoyment of Contact with Mentally Retarded Persons for German Samples ABS— MR—Stated Importance of Religion Corre— lations for German Samples . ABS— MR— Stated Adherence to Religion Corre— lations for German Samples ABS— MR—Amount of Education Correlations for German Samples . . . ABS—MR—Age Correlations for German Samples. . . . . . . . ABS—MR Means and 2‘s for Total Sample of Females Versus Total Sample of Males ABS— —MR-Change Orientation Partial and Multiple Correlations for German Samples. . . . . . . . . ABS—MR—Agreement with Local and Federal Aid to Education Correlations for German Samples. . . a . . . ABS MR- -Agreement with Centralized Planning of Education Correlations for German Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . ABS—MR Adjusted Means, F's, and Multiple Means Test Results for German Samples. Q2'S for Obtained and Empirically Ordered Matrices on Six Level ABS— MR for German Samples. . . . . . . . . ABS— MR Adjusted Means and t' s for Parents of Retarded Children Attending Versus Parents of Retarded Children not Attending a Special School for the Moderately Retarded . . - ° ' ix Page 124 127 130 132 13H 1M2 14A 147 150 15“ 162 s»_ n_. (D 25. ESTER—Time has been Correlat: Children c:\ . ABS-1'13 Adj u: enced ‘Je: Educatim . ABS-11.8 Adju; enced "1e: School 3 . ABS-1111. Adj u; Means Te; Sample A Most Pam. 2;, 1'8, Means, German 3; Variable: q . t a Q's zor Obw Matrices Scores f( Sexual 00mp1 ..vfir. .. .-. --. . Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. ABS—MR—Time a Moderately Retarded Child has been Attending a Special School Correlations for 111 Parents of these Children . . . . . . . . ABS— MR Adjusted Means and t's for Experi— enced Versus Inexperienced Special Education Teachers . . . ABS— MR Adjusted Means and t's for Experi— enced Versus Inexperienced Regular School Teachers . . ABS—MR Adjusted Means, F's and Multiple Means Test Results for Total German Sample According to Level of Retardation Most Familiar with . . . . . . N's, Means, and Standard Deviations for German Sample Groups on 22 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . 2 Q 's for Obtained and Empirically Ordered Matrices on Six Level ABS— MR Content— —only Scores for German Samples. . . . Sexual Composition of German Samples Page 16A 166 168 170 310 311 312 n -'* 0:“ a 5:361 5:01-. fictituae a Basic Facet: StruCCLO: . Attituae le Descript: Universe 5. llefinitio: Structie: 1.1 f- “w _ ---' .-. _. . __~_. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page l. Basic Facets Used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Universe . . . 51 2. Facet Profiles and Descriptive Labels of Attitude Levels . . . . . . . . 52 3. Basic Facets Used to Determine Conjoint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . 56 A. Attitude Level,Profile Compositions, and Descriptive Names for Six Level Attitude Universe Measured by the ABS—MR. . . . 57 5. A Definitional System for the Conjoint Struction of the Attitude Behavior Scale— Mental Retardation . . . . . . . . 58 6. A Mapping Sentence of the Conjoint, Disjoint, and Response Mode Struction Facets Used to Structure the Attitude Behavior Scale— Mental Retardation . . . . . . . . 6O xi :5 ":11 F’W‘ L a ...- I\: (3 dix Attitude Be German Ira: Scale: Scoring PM Combining Scores , Code Book 5 Germany. tatistical LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A.l Attitude Behavior Scale: A.2 German Translation of Attitude Behavior Scale: ABS—MR Scoring Procedure and Rationale for Combining ABS—MR Con Scores Code Book Special Instructions for Germany. Statistical Material ABS—MR b tent—intensity Page 266 301 304 15—- 1 ;—.-_' - L.fi:fijfi-I=-— 4r.“ .- - -.’“,. . y. ‘. . -1 T:._:C. EvalLECICY‘. 1591, perceive and 535131116 and "1111915 of inter .~..:ian (1959) ela $1191 and action “a” each level .1UD~UnivGrSes: iie‘w' . L1&1 lnteracti ‘1 m “311$ Sl“inc CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It would appear that as yet there is no complete agreement upon the definition of the concept of attitude. fimre does appear to be general agreement, however, that attitudes are relatively permanent, referential, shared, leflect evaluations, and that social environment is instru— mmmal and decisive in their development (Duijker, 1955). For the purposes of this research, the general mientation of Kerlinger (1966), and more particularly, Hat of Guttman (1950) will be accepted and adopted. Kerlinger defines attitude as ”a predisposition to think, feel, perceive and behave toward a cognitive object (p.483)," while Guttman views the same concept as a 'flelimited totality of behavior with respect to something (p. 51)." Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) proposed four types M°levels of interaction with a cognitive object which mmtman (1959) elaborated into a structural theory of belief and action based on and defined by elements to moduce each level. Guttman defined four of these levels M‘sub—universes: (a) Stereotypes, (b) Norms, (c) Hypo- Umtical Interaction, and (d) Personal Interaction (see Figues l & 2 in Chapter III). "Attitude" in this schema 1 :msranges from t actual PEWCEG be Jordan (1955 miles and 90-min :3 be important i6 tars of attitudes: £51, and income, 1 ;:.e's value orient :nnt, nature, 96 2:3 contact, and A :fz‘actual informs Jordan founi Eiliies were incor iictor variables 5 1‘51; be that the *Efiingly Stemming iiilerent levels c 311lover which at his likely to cc i531011, and non—c NumePOUS Peg mick, 1953; Ben :1..- :”1%) Stem 3. Cr .1153301dwede1 & tr med the signit thus ranges from the stereotypic level to the subject's actual reported behavior. Jordan (1968) reviewed the literature on attitude studies and concluded that four classes of variables seem U>be important determinants, correlates, and/or predic— tors of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, and income, (b) socio—psychological factors such as mw's value orientation, (0) contact factors such as ammum, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact, and (d) the knowledge factor, i.e., the amount offectual information one has about the attitude object. Jordan found, however, that most of the research studies were inconclusive or contradictory about the pre— dictor variables and suggested that the reason might very well be that the attitude scales were composed of items seemingly stemming from different structures, i.e., from different levels of Guttman's sub-universes. Lack of con— trol over which attitudinal levels are being measured seems likely to continue to produce inconsistent, contra— dictory, and non—comparable findings in attitude research. Numerous researchers (Barker, Wright, Myerson & Gmflbk, 1953; Berreman, 195“; Force, 1956; Gowman, 1957; thring, Stern & Cruickshank, 1958; Miller, 1956; Simmons, 19553 Soldwedel & Terril, 1957; Wright, 1960) have demon- strated the significance of attitudes in the acceptance Oftmndicapped persons in certain social and educational ,--r: GunZL‘” 5:111:53 ' 'r; «the 15151934 " ..... 1 ,1 «A‘fi‘.C brow. Cw“ n . ~-~~r . nmwah‘ 1.1». C‘- V““ reactuns of the : area function of are provided for e .M. 4"“. 1‘ ‘ .v11. ufeeneaw 3201111 of metam $9111 and indeper E5111' the proper 1 settings. Gunzburg (1958) states that mental retardation, mflike physical handicap, is to a large extent a social concept, created in part by the Industrial Revolution. hmreasing technological complexity as well as the pro— gress of medical and psychological science have undoubtedly laito increased rates of mental retardation, both abso— hme rates because of expanding population and better diag— rmsis and treatment, as well as relative rates through identification of those who, while perhaps able to function , fl Mia simpler society, are unable to cope with the complex - demands of modern society. Hutt and Gibby (1965) and Gunzburg (1958) have stressed the necessity for concern with the reactions of society to mental retardation. Many of the behavioral reactions of the retardate are learned reactions which are a function of his social environment (cf., Cohen, 1963; Peckham, 1951). Moreover, in the last analysis, Hm attitudes of society also determine the programs that are provided for adequate care, management, and rehabili— tation. Greenbaum and Wang (1965) point out that the vast majority of retardates could be helped to lead socially Imeful and independent lives if they were able to obtain early the proper encouragement and guidance. The likelihood of their doing so depends in great part on the attitudes and conceptions of mental retardation held by the public in general, and in particular by those individuals who have direct contact with the mental retardate at significant times in his life (p. 257)- Despite the map, very little :svard uncovering isx'elopnent of at? Zzaddition, no re feee’tized design atitu‘es toward 2 uncapped. [can farent attitudire. :19 value crienta‘ factual knowledge In a report W hen, 313101 stated the: attitudes and tel “ll-ml Studies . ‘13111tl‘aces a p. Earth 10 the inc: 31.611111th States ”:1 onOPtunities EssaPet. Concurrently Science OUtsi eed ‘ - ODDO: national boun. Despite the importance of community attitudes, how— ever, very little systematic research has been directed toward uncovering factors which are instrumental in the development of attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Diaddition, no research has been found that used a facetized design (Guttman, 1959) to measure and analyze attitudes toward retardation or any other category of the handicapped. What importance can be attributed for dif— ferent attitudinal sub—universes to (a) the amount of contact a person has had with the mentally retarded, (b) Um value orientation of the person, (c) the amount of factual knowledge about retardation he possesses, (d) Hm demographic characteristics of the subject, and (e) Um existing social structure within cultural groups? In a report published by the American Psychological Association, Kelley, Hastorf, Jones, Thibaut, and Usdane (1960) stated there would be "great value" in studying attitudes and beliefs regarding disability through cross— mfltural studies of adaptations to disability. Suchman (1964) traces a renewed interest in cross—national re— search to the increasing international participation of Hm United States in foreign areas, which has opened many rmw opportunities for social scientists for study and research. Concurrently, the growth of an empirical social science outside the United States has created the need and opportunity for comparing results across national boundaries. Of more basic theoretical - dd-u-hp-e‘ :- - and methodolg demand, cI‘v’e‘ab the field It: haVioral SCI“? cultural bout: Suchman (19 rational, or intr Lititing variable tat :ive rise to . ‘LW‘: .' n”, the res ear rug different c in attempt to dis i‘stription which Given the pre and that soci according to idle and pred should) test culture by ex true in anoth 1211. human (195111 a1 tuparisons as a laid of knouledg veross~cultural the data about d his level, the m colNotion of and methodological importance is the increased demand, created by the accumulated knowledge in the field itself, for the development of a be— havioral science which transcends national or cultural boundaries (p. 124). Suchman (1964) defines the cross—cultural, cross— national, or intra—cultural comparative method as "an attempt to incorporate time and space as control or limiting variables into generalizations about group be— havior (p. 125).” The ultimate goal of this methodology is to provide a logic of analysis whereby the general future of a phenomenon may be specified and the conditions that give rise to its specific manifestations explained. lbnce, the researcher seeks similarities and differences among different cultural, national or social groups in maattempt to discover a ”common thread" or level of description which cuts across group lines. Given the premise that human behavior is regular and that social systems and social forms occur according to regularities which are also discern— ible and predictable, it follows that one may (and should) test a generalization developed in one culture by examining the extent to which it holds true in another culture (Suchman, 196A, pp. 126— 127). &mhman (1964) also distinguishes between cross—cultural comparisons as a method of research and as a substantive field of knowledge. As a field of knowledge, comparative m'cross—cultural research attempts to build up substan— tive data about different cultures or groups, and, on Ufls level, the methodological problems lie mainly in the collection of data which are equivalent—-data describing institutions, practices, attitudes, values, and beliefs, in differing societies. Suchman points out, however, that comparative research is departing more and mwre from topical or descriptive investigations and dealing increasingly with the cross-cultural testing of hypotheses and is therefore seeking an organizing principle or ratio— nale for the classification of data which is based not on topical categories but upon the elements underlying the concepts being related. Statement of the Problem The present study is part of a comprehensive attempt to research attitudes toward the education, rehabilitation, amisocial acceptance of the mentally retarded in the muted States and several other countries which as of this writing include Brazil, British Honduras, Colombia, Iran, Israel, Yugoslavia, and possibly Poland and India.1 The comprehensive study can be described as being concerned with the following: 1. To determine predominate value orientations and attitudes toward education, rehabilitation, and social mmeptance of the mentally retarded among the following hmerest groups in each of the research countries: 1The larger study on retardation is under the direc— timiof John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University; assisted by a number of doctoral students. Aprevious study by Jordan (1968) has already explored cross—cultural attitudes toward the physically disabled. (a) Real! 1E1 SPEC (c1 Pare (d1 Diana (a1 Tail (t1 Jon: to) Sen: (d) in: filtitudes acros him, 195;, "n' L 5L y to tne fill itslderSnNthe m as been likened 1111161111, 195 meat to democra {1113111. and the ":1 a I”Ocus upon 1.. H15 'e. (a) Regular School Teachers (b) Special Education and Rehabilitation Personnel (c) Parents of the Mentally Retarded (d) Managers and Executives 2. To assess the predictive validity of the following Impothesized determinants of attitudes toward mental retar— dation in each of the research countries: (a) Valuational (b) Contactual (c) Demographic (d) Knowledge 3. To compare each of the analyses (1 and 2 above) among the research countries when ranked according to de- gree of economic modernization as well as related indices of modernization. h. To test the hypothesis of an invariate structure of attitudes across nations, i.e., that the Guttman Simplex (Guttman, 1959, 1966) will be maintained across nations (see Chapter 111). It is suggested that the extent of commitment of a society to the full education and integration of its own 'butsiders"--the mentally retarded and physically disabled have been likened to Negroes in respect to minority group status (Tenny, l953)——is an index of the fundamental com— rfitment to democratization and liberalization of education generally, and that such a commitment is not compatible wimia focus upon the individual as subservient to the state. Attitudes tt rations were neasu zaps six levels 0: {see Chapter III a The purpose gredominate value retardation across Ezele-i-lental Retai ire predictive val Siple in Germanv ital es being usec study. The selectic divided a populat level of economic fillering in langL‘ Films for the me and treatment, a 4535. Kirk (1962) trial schools fo ilquite rare in 3111hi 0 @ bein Attitudes toward retardation in each of the subject nations were measured with a new instrument——the Attitude Behavior Scale—Mental Retardation (Jordan, l969)-—which taps six levels of interaction with the attitude object (see Chapter III and Appendix A). The purpose of this study was to investigate the predominate value orientations and attitudes toward mental retardation across the six levels of the Attitude Behavior Scale—Mental Retardation (ABSeMR), as well as to assess Hm predictive validity of the previously described hy— pothesized determinants of attitudes, with sample groups bathe Federal Republic of Germany (”West Germany"). The sample in Germany was selected to be comparable to the samples being used in other countries in the comprehensive study. The selection of the Federal Republic of Germany provided a population similar to the United States in level of economic development and modernization and yet (fiffering in language, culture, educational system, pro— visions for the mentally retarded, history of minority abup treatment, and commitment to the democratic pro— cess. Kirk (1962) has noted, for example, that segregated fimcial schools for the educable mentally retarded are rmw quite rare in the United States, with the homogeneous mmcial class being the organization most preferred by special educators. spiral and mental in more efficier infrarework of t usable to partic gulls in regular Federal Republic, :egregation of the amps into specia nilai Kegel, l9 1,311; Gathen, 1967 inclusion of 2m should not on 3111101” the pred Tritiulness of th 33111110n and anal 1513 for cross~nat inaluating pese 1511. as being Of i its knowledge gain aalready Dl‘oven :frut‘mn of Scale Lulhites toward MEI) 1968) and ..mu (Maierle, l special educators. Such classes, with a minimal chrono— logical and mental age spread, are thought to make instruc— tion more efficient. The advantage of such classes within Hm framework of the regular school is that the children are able to participate in some school activities with pupils in regular grades. The emphasis in the German Federal Republic, on the other hand, has remained on the segregation of the educable retarded and other disability grmmm into special auxilliary schools whenever possible Umlla & Kegel, 1958; International Bureau of Education, 1960; Gathen, 1967). Inclusion of West Germany in the comprehensive study Ums should not only assist in assessing the generaliza— 1fllity of the predictor variables and the utility and fmntfulness of the facet approach to attitude scale con— struction and analysis, but should, in addition, provide data for cross—national comparisons which will be useful hievaluating research outcomes in the United States as wetlas being of intrinsic value to the country concerned. Rm knowledge gained from the construction of the ABS-MR ins already proven important and applicable in the con— struction of scales to measure the attitudes of Negroes mm Whites toward each other (Erb, 1969; Hammersma, 1969; Jordan, 1968) and attitudes toward the emotionally dis- mnted (Maierle, 1969)- 5—17 hr.» Erlendelsol'm 1 gested that a frui :e’to find out Ti timers concernir :ritp's populatic nearing since I-Ie Lner of studies Srrrisingly, most .1 .. ental Deficier 12356 studies varw l trumentation, a a warrant more t Attitude One of the r 116 literature, “‘19 authors admi Ea: ' wring Conceptj antic“ ("idiot 3 aimed") and thr CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH Mendelsohn (1954) more than a dozen years ago sug— gested that a fruitful area of investigation for research— ms interested in improving the lot of the retarded would be'io find out first what informational and attitudinal clusters concerning mental deficiency exist among the com— mnfity's population (p. 507)." A review of the literature fimearing since Mendelsohn's suggestion reveals that a mmmer of studies have since emerged in this area; not muprisingly, most have appeared in the American Journal M‘Mental Deficiency. At the outset it may be stated that Hmse studies vary considerably in sophistication, design, hmtrumentation, and control; most are not comparable, and few warrant more than passing consideration. Attitudes Toward Mental Retardation One of the most comprehensive studies encountered hithe literature, and the one most related to the present research, was that conducted by Greenbaum and Wang (1965), 'Nwse authors administered a 21 scale semantic differential ”wasuring conceptions of four terms describing mental re— tmfiation ("idiot," "imbecile,” "moron," and "mentally retarded") and three terms describing mental illness 10 l H ‘ Chantilly 111’ - + 101191" 300 30111” roll: the fol-10111] emptied Children a, s ,1 (a O x: :3 m (D ,1 . (3 "S (1‘ Nine cl tie .:., strong-hf??- I'ast-slow, not—CC 11511 through fa 712‘; data to most in semantic “pac Lead in general. in attempt to trial stimulus v ill—Cal propertie Manly by mean The finding ‘13 Significant n 11 gl‘oups, wit T_____________________________________11 11 (”mentally ill," "emotionally disturbed,” and "neurotic”) to over 300 adult respondents who were selected from among the following populations: (a) parents of mentally retarded children (100), (b) professional experts who were likely to advise or treat the mentally retarded (55 voca— tional counselors, 12 high school teachers of the mentally retarded, 25 school psychologists, and 13 physicians), (0) potential employers of the mentally retarded (68 exec- utives), and (d) paraprofessional employees (37) and volun— teers (26) who worked with institutionalized mental retar- dates. Nine of the 21 scales measured the three factors of Evaluation (e.g., good—bad, pleasant—unpleasant), Potency (e.g., strong—weak, rugged-delicate), and Activity (e.g., fast—slow, hot—cold) found by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum U957) through factor analytic work on semantic differen— tial data to most consistently and prominently describe me semantic space in which terms and concepts may be or— dered in general. The remaining 12 scales were assembled Dian attempt to assess attitudes toward the retardate's social stimulus value, his physical health, and his psycho- logical properties or attributes. The data was analyzed primarily by means of the "sign" test. The findings indicated that the paraprofessionals had a significantly more positive attitude than any of the Ofier groups, with the parents having significantly more 111-1. attitud‘“ a uni-1: .arzl. T I" ,w M "n . 1w fir; 13.11: lacbc‘ V 352:1; n65give grinds and cone its mentally ill- lnalvsis oi" tzsidllowing res :1‘ lower sooioeco tied toward the 1 .... to have no lies than malES; Lien confounded 1), Thu n wipe, (c) there :ujects to hold 1 :11)? I ‘ ter subjects. 12 pmfltive attituden than both the professionals and the employers--the latter had the most negative attitudes of the groups measured while the professionals had a signifi— cantly more positive score than the employers on the Eval- uative factor only. It was found that the general structure of concep— tions of the mentally retarded was the same for all groups, i.eu the scores covaried. This conception, however, was mainly a negative one. Only three of the scales averaged Mia direction just barely positive while seven were strongly negatively evaluated. Parents and professionals were clearly ambivalent on the Evaluative factor. In addi- tion, it was found that all groups had a more negative attitude and conception of the mentally retarded than of the mentally ill. Analysis of the data by demographic variables yielded Um following results: (a) the less well educated and those of lower socioeconomic standing were more favorably dis— posed toward the mentally retarded; (b) female subjects tended to have more positive conceptions of mental retar- dates than males; this latter finding, however, may have been confounded by the sexual composition of the various grmnm; (0) there was a non—significant trend for older subjects to hold more positive images of the retarded than younger subjects. Greenbaum E :01 their finding. ssnteived and exe- :: whether some (1: :i treating the d; headers, and pin: rating the four her one concept rated to various reactions to the ‘ 2; Q ~ 1‘ -v m". EGHSI‘ally MC] :35 idiot" and red in this stut 1:5 comparative, ~ gradigm and the r tree (see Figure: assessed. None of the 313116hensively cc ireenbaum and Wang Tiered do not re limitation by tc added to OPder t “113 being studi l3 Greenbaum and Wang (1965) offer some explanations ibr their findings and their study was, in general, well conceived and executed. A question might be raised as to whether some differences may have been lost as a result of treating the data for counselors, special education teachers, and physicians under one concept, i.e., "pro- ' i l fessional experts.’ The authors offer a rationale for treating the four terms referring to mental retardation lumer one concept but it is wondered how various groups reacted to various labels-—the authors do state that reactions to the terms "mentally retarded” and ”moron" were generally more favorable than the reactions to the terms "idiot" and "imbecile." The attitudes being mea— mued in this study, however, would appear to fall at Um comparative, Stereotypic level in Guttman's (I959) paradigm and the other levels of Guttman's attitude uni— verse (see Figures l—U in Chapter III) were not being assessed. None of the other studies encountered attempted to comprehensively compare as many different groups as did Greenbaum and Wang (1965). The remaining studies to be reviewed do not readily lend themselves to systematic Mganization by topics and it was somewhat arbitrarily danded to order them according to the subjects or sample @wups being studied. :na 1*“ C fitaladeStEd E ictoy (1953 retarded underacl" 12‘ retarded achie lfrealistic self féaiistic level C Elghifieant trend 1“ Self Attitudes A few studies have appeared which were concerned with self attitudes among the retarded. For example, in attempting to develop a system of personality assessment based on the institutionalized female retardate's con— ception of herself and her world, Guthrie, Butler, and Gorlow (1961) found a high positive correlation between how the retardate saw herself and how she believed others perceived her. In a 1964 study, Guthrie, Butler, Gorlow and White, again using institutionalized female retardates, found that self attitudes were often defensive and designed more to protect the self from painful rejection than to gain approval through achievement. Kniss, Butler, Gorlow, and Guthrie (1962), with a similar sample, found no relation— ship between ideal self attitudes, as determined by a Qsort, and age, IQ, and length of institutionalization. Shfilarly, McAfee and Cleland (1955) found no difference between the self—ideal self discrepancy between adjusted mm.maladjusted educable males. McCoy (1963) found that a sample of educable mentally retarded underachievers, when compared to a matched sample of retarded achievers, had a significantly lower degree ofrealistic self confidence as well as a lower and less realistic level of aspiration. There was also a non— Significant trend for achievers to have a higher degree r ides, an: a :zilo‘nen ottained :ignificant diffe: figs and 101-: achi‘ *.:;eo' that even 2. intent than T. 11 .4 Reverend t z iniexof self €161" research. I-Zeyero‘ were none derogat iznnaey to expec issigned to regul Elves than those dense t‘neiin age ii.I‘Snienoes thoug Laing and C Windy group st IEeven in South tint S dld not a 1“ Mo (19314) 15 of perceived parental acceptance and intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic self valuation. Snyder (1966), in a well designed study, correlated academic achievement with measures of personality, self attitudes, and anxiety in a sample of mildly retarded dfildren obtained from a variety of settings and found significant differences in the expected direction between tugh and low achievers on all three measures. Snyder also rmted that even the high achievers generally showed poorer mfiustment than normal IQ children. Meyerowitz (1962) compared groups of educable first grade retardates who had been randomly assigned to regular amispecial classes to a normal criterion group on an heex of self derogation especially developed for his research. Meyerowitz found that the retardates as a group were more derogatory of themselves than the normal children. Qumrary to expectation, he also found that the retardates assigned to regular classes were less derogatory of them— selves than those assigned to special classes—-perhaps kecause their age had not yet permitted significant failure experiences thought to result from regular class placement. Laing and Chazan (1966) used a sociometric technique M>study group structure in a sample of classrooms for the retarded in South Wales. The authors concluded that their results did not agree with the results of an earlier study m/Moreno (1934) who found that the organization of groups ’n which mentally “one unreciproce (fins) and Hen, A~ adore to compare hareness of one' retarded, normal, I. regular classrc gr‘Lnortioned thei: :7: superior and r ‘cerior children i-Icathic ability :' ¥§‘erior children chnrn showed 301 Smith and F :ic'oetween motel li‘trainable and t Tad; (1961421) PGPC itcleof normal f dudes toward a ' tended in the se 1Intent analysis t then the retarc‘ is at times eval l6 hiwhich mentally retarded children prevail revealed nu— merous unreciprocated choices, a low number of mutual pairs, and many isolates. Miller (1956) had earlier used the sociometric pro— cedure to compare social status and socioempathic abilities (awareness of one's own and others' status) among mentally retarded, normal, and superior upper elementary children hiregular classrooms. It was found that the retardates proportioned their choices across groups equally while Hm superior and normal children generally favored the superior children most and the retardates least. Socio— mmathic ability followed the expected pattern with the superior children showing more ability than normals who Maturn showed more ability than the retardates. Peer and Community Attitudes Smith and Hurst (1961) found a significant relation- shnrbetween motor ability and peer acceptance in a group oftrainable and educable retardates attending a day school. Clark (1964a) reports a similar finding using a large sample of normal fifth grade boys and girls and their at— fitudes toward a "special" group of educable mentally retarded in the same school. Employing an interview and cmnent analysis technique, Clark found a fluid boundary between the retarded—normal groups and, while the retarded wme at times evaluated unfavorably, the normals reacted are to their app Clark @9611 sididren in class aided did not id attempt has then ions of the spec 13.}? cf the Chi; :alled derogatom :atvs. Jaffe (196‘ types which “CO“ tardation. In a chaotic differel athe factor and ii‘lctivity, Pote location, (c) chance Scale, at (including ' l7 nwre to their appearance and athletic ability than to their intellectual or academic ability. Clark (1964b) in a separate study found that normal children in classes adjacent to a class for mentally re— tarded did not identify photographs of retardates with their special class status in an elementary school. An attempt was then made to more directly ascertain percep- tions of the special class and it was found that only 10.9% of the children's remarks about the class were de— rogatory. Over 90% of the children described special class members in terms of deviancy but only 5.4% correctly described this deviancy as mental retardation. These results are in seeming contradiction to those of Johnson mm Ferreira (1958) who reported that interviews with re— tardates in special classes revealed that 70% had been called derogatory names because of their special class status. Jaffe (1966) demonstrated the importance of stereo— types which become attached to the concept of mental re— tardation. In a well designed study, Jaffe employed two semantic differential scales, (a) one tapping the Evalu— ative factor and the second, (b) measuring a combination of Activity, Potency, and an Independent—Suggestible factor. hiaddition, (c) an adjective check list, (d) the Social Distance Scale, (e) a vocabulary test, and (f) demographic data (including amount of contact with the retarded) were mo used to MW? 7-1"! high schoor : u v czarded snetch p shoved a differ at not had conta his finding as s -. arore cognitive iiihdhlc status v :eaures but it v user of favorat Jr is nan did boys :etter efforts tC factor to attituC Itereotypic level Jaffe (1967 E"Zitu‘ . . 098 Of nlgl' 18 also used to investigate attitude relationships among 240 high school seniors. Half the group responded to a retarded sketch person and half responded to a non— retarded sketch person as well as to the label ”mentally retarded." No significant differences were found on in— struments a, c, and d between the retarded and non— retarded sketch persons; however, the retarded sketch person was significantly more favorably evaluated than the label ”mentally retarded” on the Evaluative factor. hmtrument b showed a significant difference between the E retarded and non-retarded sketches while only instrument c showed a difference between those who had and those who had not had contact with retardates. Jaffe interpreted fins finding as suggesting that contact may be related to a more cognitive or descriptive dimension of attitudes as opposed to actual feelings. } Indices of the students' intelligence and socio- economic status were not related to any of the attitude neasures but it was found that girls attributed a greater mmmer of favorable attitudes to the retarded sketch per— smathan did boys. Jaffe's study represents one of the better efforts to relate demographic indices and the contact factor to attitudinal measures and to move beyond the stereotypic level. Jaffe (1967) later used a similar design to assess attitudes of high school seniors toward an identical sketch (arson identifier a: ”an amputee” e ,ihother group of ice," "mentally I asveli as to the The instrument u: each case the di; n -, ”is, mentally .35: attitudes of is to mentally Xildfen. 137451 1y concerns intonation, fdahc sheen freshmen ilittrue~false 1 Significant corrc 13‘ relevant cour‘ fitted and grade 19 person identified as mentally retarded to one group and as "an amputee" and "emotionally disturbed" to two others. Another group of students reSponded to the labels ”ampu— teefl'"mentally retarded," and ”former mental patient" as well as to the sketch person not identified as disabled. The instrument used was the semantic differential and in each case the disabled sketch person was more favorably evaluated than the corresponding label. Of the three terms, "mentally retarded" was the least favorably eval— uated. Badt (1957) reported results of a study in which the attitudes of university students in education and other curricula were obtained toward exceptional children as a group as well as toward separate categories of exceptional dflldren. Analysis was descriptive only but, generally, the attitudes of the students seemed to be most unfavor- able to mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed children. In a study purporting to deal with attitudes but actually concerned primarily with possession of factual hmormation, Mahoney and Pangrac (1960) found a difference between freshmen and senior college students on a 12 item true-false test. For the latter group there were significant correlations between test scores and number of relevant courses (dealing with mental deficiency) Com— Pleted and grade point average. in a simile found significant no items of a ni zest and conclude existed among the Polansky (I siency f-iisconcept iatric technicf :2 several pSi’Ch‘ inelinthrop and g, technicians Let ”the feeble: also found that 1 films than males :dans‘ny also for responses to the :3 education or 1 ittitudes, and SI Anders and :institution f< id to relate etl ac" . flip - . e1131mm far 1—_’ 20 In a similar design, Winthrop and Taylor (1957) found significant differences between men and women on two items of a nine item dichotomous response (yes—no) test and concluded that a great deal of misinformation existed among the adult laymen in their sample. Polansky (1961) used the same scale (Mental Defi— ciency Misconception Scale) and related responses of psy— chiatric technicians in a state hospital for the retarded to several psychological variables. His hypothesis that psychiatric technicians held incorrect opinions concerning mental deficiency in a proportion similar to laymen in the Winthrop and Taylor (1957) study was not supported, e.g., technicians believed to a greater extent than laymen that "the feebleminded are readily recognizable." It was also found that female technicians had fewer misconcep- tions than males and appeared to be more "tender hearted." Polansky also found some support for his hypothesis that responses to the MDMS are affected not as much by exposure to education or by factual knowledge but rather by beliefs, attitudes, and emotional biases. Anders and Dayan (1967) also studied attendants in mainstitution for the mentally retarded. Their purpose was to relate ethnic variables to child—rearing beliefs and attitudes measured by a 45 item questionnaire. Only the religious factor proved significant, with Catholics shoving a decides estants although enitudes. Iieyer ,ciL Lezerviev.‘ to ease third the educa‘: “...:ir education. 331:1: of 80,003 11C schocl p, 0) Rescor‘der Cél‘ing IOI‘ c than Lhose ‘u'il ”11 literal inamllle\ wlt‘r Cfllld at horn: «ll general :CUOOl respoE [Thunders Heater (196 gens“) as well the mental 21 showing a decidedly more permissive attitude than Prot- estants although neither group had strongly permissive attitudes. Meyers, Sitkei, and Watts (1966) used a five question interview to assess attitudes among two community groups toward the educable and trainable mentally retarded and their education. The groups were (a) a random sample of a city of 80,000 near Los Angeles (N=188), and (b) 24 households where a child was enrolled in a special class for the mentally retarded. The study was summarized as follows: (1) Special class families are more willing to keep EMR and TMR children at home rather than send them away. Non—caucasians in the special sample fami— lies are especially accepting. (2) The special sample families tend to be more supportive of pub— lic school provision for either the EMR or TMR. (3) Respondents in a religious group generally calling for orthodoxy of belief were less accepting than those whose identification with religion was Of a liberal or casual sort. (A) The more mobile families with retarded children favor keeping the child at home rather than in an institution.. (5) In general, there is less acceptance of public school responsibility for the trainable than for the educable retarded child. (6) Distress1ng per- centages of respondents in both samples appear to misunderstand the potential of the EMR child, many believing they should be institutionalized, should not go to school, should not have proviSions, etc. That result, together with the results generally, bespeak a still considerable public misunder— Standing of the potentialities of the educable, and of the possibilities for decent community living for the trainable (p. 83)- Heater (1967) used an attitude scale which measured intenSity as well as positiveness to assess attitudes tOward the mentally retarded of A05 clergymen of various denominations (J Beformed, Reform tisconsin SynOdS rate to a numbe struments. It W :ontact with men szrongiy about t acted regardles z." unfavorable-- and suggestion related to a nor tension of attit Ciergynen living things timed to show m 3111’ retarded. life found to be at there was no :ESSPOUDS and 1; Eidttitudes. I 1i‘imeasupe of :envho held uni“; chided. Heate; his on to attitude; 22 denominations (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Methodist, Christian Reformed, Reformed Church of America and the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods of the Lutheran Church) and to relate these to a number of variables obtained through other in— struments. It was found that clergymen with more frequent contact with mentally retarded persons tended to feel more strongly about their attitudes toward the mentally re- tarded regardless of whether the attitudes were favorable or unfavorable—-a finding at variance with the previously noted suggestion of Jaffe (1966) that contact seems to be related to a more cognitive as opposed to emotional di— mension of attitude. Clergymen in Heater's study who placed more value midoing things for other people and being generous tended to show more favorable attitudes toward the men— tally retarded. Sources of the variance of attitudes were found to be primarily within denominational groups ibr there was no evidence of differences between any of the groups and the rural—urban areas studied in respect to attitudes. It was found, however, that high scores mia measure of conformity tended to be made by clergy— mmiwho held unfavorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Heater's study represents one of the few in Hus area that attempts to relate general value orienta— tion to attitudes toward the mentally retarded. ear-her Attitude :rnaared pel’tine it” ,n-nep investie racial educat ic: feral employed ( fennel and lo 0; ear, both group: Eidfe. Semmel cc inlied relatiOm the attitudes t< findings may have at proportionai Fathers with 10 is regular teacl fin | A It is ale Teacher Attitudes Four studies were found which at first glance appeared pertinent to the heading of this section. On further investigation, however, two of these (Harris, 1956; lbrris, 1958) were exploratory single case studies of limited value, while a third (Conner & Goldberg, 1960) consisted of a superficial analysis of a survey with less than a 50% response rate. Semmel (1959) in what is possibly the only sub— stantive study available in this area, explored the re- lationship between the attitudes of 40 regular and 27 special education teachers and the knowledge variable. Smmwl employed a N8 item questionnaire, 32 of which were factual and 16 of which measured attitudes toward retar— dation. Analysis of mean scores revealed that the special teachers had significantly greater knowledge concerning mental deficiency than did regular grade teachers; how— ever, both groups showed an equally high positive attitude score. Semmel concluded that his research "questions the Mmlied relationship between correct information and posi— tive attitudes toward the retarded (p. 573)." These findings may have been confounded, however, by the fact that proportionally more women and three times as many teachers with 10 or more years experience existed among ins regular teacher group than in the special educator group. It is also not clear what facets or levels of of attitudes werw research represet in this area and Eerental Attitude interview: schedui 121 responses to renal sequence < :an‘ation. R0591 reactions conforr :‘thepro‘nlem, l sting for a cat .3) acceptance or Gordon and Sims following 6 Eilents of mongol ii‘uncertainty an Zillcal advice at Mllpor‘tance oi 519" of other fa 31539 authors des any and defensj mnabilitv to we the "most cc 20 of attitudes were being measured. Nevertheless, Semmel's research represents the lone exploratory attempt found in this area and points the way for further efforts. Parental Attitudes Several studies have appeared which have attempted to elicit parental attitudes through the use of inter— views. Rosen (1955), for example, employed a 56 item Mmerview schedule and content analysis to relate mater- rml responses to an hypothesized five phase develop- mental sequence of understanding and acceptance of re— tardation. Rosen found that, in general, the mothers' reactions conformed to the five phases: (a) awareness of the problem, (b) recognition of the problem, (c) seeking for a cause, (d) seeking for a solution, and (e) acceptance of the problem. Gordon and Ullman (1956) reported their impres— sions following eight weekly group therapy sessions with parents of mongoloid children. They found a great deal 0f uncertainty among the parents despite a history of medical advice and felt that the parents overestimated Um importance of their children's IQ scores to the ne— glect of other factors that determine social adjustment. ste authors described the parents as being saddled with gfllt and defensiveness and noted that overprotection an inability to make realistic demands on the child were the "most commonly expressed neurotic attitudes.” Jilted Schonell a :1“ retarded chil are subjects wer ides on the par if the father wa azzitudes were ‘ favorable atti an e outside t; star" retardati ..aa'heen establi. Stoddard (I shades, randor retarded childret :cveral objective e-l achievement. "Unsaid between -- their severely exclusion by st 5 ...-ely a functior ”1161‘s (196 interview sated to relate 25 Schonell and Watts (1956) interviewed 50 parents of retarded children in Brisbane, Australia. Most of the subjects were mothers and reported favorable atti— tudes on the part of the father, siblings, relatives, and outsiders. In eight cases, however, the attitude of the father was unfavorable, in seven cases sibling attitudes were unfavorable, and in nine cases those of relatives were unfavorable. Five parents complained of unfavorable attitudes and treatment of the child by people outside the family circle. Schonell and Rorke (1960) also report some positive changes in attitudes toward retardation in the same sample after the children had been established in a day school for special training. Stoddard (1963), in perhaps the most controlled study using the interview technique to assess parental attitudes, randomly sampled and interviewed parents of retarded children and correlated elicited attitudes with several objective measures of the child's intelligence and achievement._ Stoddard found no demonstrable rela— tionship between parental attitudes and the achievement oftheir severely retarded children but qualified her conclusion by stating that the lack of relationship was likely a function of inadequate instruments. Ehlers (1964), in an exploratory study using a fbcused interview format and descriptive analysis, at— tmmmed to relate a number of variables to parental I attitudes toward 1;; a community a seated important were middle clas reflection of no accessibility to ::a social cont agreement anon: Iiercer (19' {lids as well as Ides toward inst Zeciates release iiivitalized in a it‘dates who were iii more frequer we. hated and shov- iiifrphysical he Lute ' national cri j » is the additi fire v dilated the E L 7——_______‘ 26 attitudes toward services offered their retarded children by a community agency. Only the social class factor seemed important, i.e., lower class parents were more willing to avail themselves of community services than were middle class parents, which may or may not be a reflection of more positive attitudes as opposed to accessibility to private resources. Levine (1966) had interviewers rate parental re— sponses regarding their male and female retarded children on a social competency scale and found significantly more agreement among the parents of a child when the child was female. The children were all trainable retardates and the differences were attributed to the fathers' tendency to devalue the male retardate more than the female re— tardate. Mercer (1966) used information from hospital re— cords as well as interviews to indirectly relate atti~ tudes toward institutionalization in families of 76 re- tardates released from and 76 matched retardates still fmspitalized in an institution. She found that the re— tardates who were re—accepted by their families (released) were more frequently diagnosed as familial or undiffer— mfiiated and showed a non—significant tendency to have fewer physical handicaps. While the patterns of pre— hwtitutional crises were similar for the two groups, it was the additional physical care problem which dif- ferentiated the groups. lleyer'ou‘itz :a'ule young r-eta regular and spec as found that t :lasses manifest :rildceu more th regular classes. Olshahslty primar Iiasses for the iglp' ~ ' .0 said they :re ' remainder re :lasslfied as "0 tiled as normal iiguii‘ieahtly be anally, and di at those J" Udge 27 Meyerowitz (1967) interviewed parents of 180 edu— cable young retardates who had been randomly assigned to regular and special classes upon entering school. It was found that the parents of children placed in special classes manifested greater awareness of retardation even though 55% of this group were judged unaware of their child's retardation and more than 25% of these parents whose children had special class training for two years persisted in responding that the child was better than other children in academic skills! Parents in this group also showed a consistent but statistically less than significant tendency to derogate and devalue their children more than parents whose children were placed in regular classes. Olshansky and Schonfield (1965) interviewed 105 families (primarily parents) of graduates of special classes for the mentally retarded and found that one— third said they thought the graduate was normal while Hm remainder refused to classify him either way. The mmhors suggest that this did not involve a denial of reality since those who were rated normal could be better classified as "culturally deprived." The ex—students per- ceived as normal or who were not rated were Judged to be Significantly better adjusted at home, socially and voca— tionally, and differed on several demographic variables frmnthose judged mentally retarded. Caldwell views in additi including three rent and attitu he were instit living at home. lependent varia :‘erences were fl Thurston the attitudes a: siltutionalized inucston's samp. acne—third rett if categorized ‘ ”“91wa that A ( l “EpiCious’ and mod 01" noun Condell (. sentence COmple‘ “rents of ment. ( :9: mal retardat- 5951 ‘ .. the parents ( 28 Caldwell and Guze (1960) employed psychiatric inter— views in addition to an impressive battery of instruments, including three attitude scales, to investigate adjust- ment and attitudes of mothers and siblings of retardates who were institutionalized as compared to retardates living at home. Despite the relatively large number of dependent variables (eight in all), no significant dif— ferences were found between the two groups. Thurston (1959) reported on the development of a new sentence completion instrument to assess parental attitudes toward their handicapped children and later (Thurston, 1960) described results of a study involving the attitudes and emotional reactions of parents of in- stitutionalized cerebral palsied, retarded patients. E ihurston's sample was large (213) but constituted only a one-third return of his original target population. He categorized the responses into eight categories and concluded that as a group the parents appeared hostile, l suspicious, and generally uneasy and went through a long "period of mourning." Sentence Completion Form to investigate the attitudes of parents of mental retardates in rural Minnesota toward mental retardation and toward an agency and its staff dealing with mentally retarded children. Less than 50% l l l l Condell (1966) used a modified version of Thurston's l l 0f the parents contacted completed the form and the author l concluded @533 :nfessiona; n9 actectance . . "‘ L' I. ‘.' 3.".-. mother: .. -‘ L' .. ..',.., 1; ZOLCEI‘: I‘M.» itariar. in Chill adjusted cit-Lon :ariates WOUJL“ i 2:29.13 was not fevelopnent was ::.e retarded gr Barclay a ESTOUp of moth Sieu' children a 5550' children w fire-:- as mentall “ildl‘en's pote 29 concluded that parental attitudes were not uniform. While professional help was sought, there was a question of its acceptance. Kenney (1967), in a well designed study, employed measures of authoritarianism and ego development (defined on a concrete—abstract thinking basis) with four groups of 10 mothers who were matched on a total of ll variables: (a) mothers who had a retarded, adjusted child, (b) mothers who had a retarded, maladjusted child, (c) mothers with a normal IQ, adjusted child, and (d) mothers with a normal IQ, maladjusted child. It was found that mothers of adjusted children, regardless of IQ, were less author— itarian in child—rearing attitudes than mothers of mal— adjusted children. The hypothesis that mothers of re— tardates would be more authoritarian than mothers of normals was not supported. Level of the mothers' ego development was related to adjustment of the child with the retarded group only. Barclay and Vaught (196“) used a rating scale with a group of mothers of non—institutionalized cerebral pal— sied children and found that the mothers of cerebral pal— sied children whose intellectual potential would classify them as mentally retarded typically overestimated their dfildren's potential for future development. Zuk (1959) has demonstrated the importance of the religious factor in parental acceptance of the retarded child. Zuk div her, on the ba 30 accepting an tneuvia Chi Sq iul found a sig religious backg latholics were if 39 Catholics lrotestants, 5 rune were class theage of the ( ince--genera111 is was to be ac< Peck and i lational and ral Children and the eElect of paren findings indica “the“ accept live child and Dingman , lttltude Resear ”We attitud 30 child. Zuk divided 76 parents of mentally retarded chil— dren, on the basis of evaluation of case histories, into 30 accepting and MO non—accepting parents and compared them via Chi Square according to religious preference. Zuk found a significant relationship between the mother's religious background and her acceptance of the child. Catholics were far more accepting than non—Catholics. [ Of 39 Catholics, 25 were accepting, 1U were not; of 28 ‘ Protestants, 5 were accepting, 23 were not; and of 9 Jews, none were classified as accepting. It was also found that the age of the child was an important factor in accep- tance——generally, the younger the child the more likely he was to be accepted. Peck and Stephens (1960) used a variety of obser— vational and rating techniques on a sample of lO retarded dflldren and their parents in an attempt to assess the effect of parental attitudes upon their children. Their findings indicate the importance of the father's attitude hithe home: a .83 correlation was found between the father's acceptance or rejection of his mentally defec~ tive child and the amount of acceptance or rejection ob- served in the home situation. Correlation involving mothers was only .09 and not statistically significant. Dingman, Eyman, and Windle (1963) gave the Parental Attitude Research Instrument (PARI) to eight groups to compare attitudes on child—rearing practices: (a) .I_ .- 7' If u A . f v. 25.1 . -.—.-‘— -l :r av._-r'- 3" 1.: -1 " Ju- 'r“ 1 ,4" Alf—r" I l;— -— 60 mothers of retarded child dren, (d) ’45 1‘ dates, (e) 11 logical techni and other empl lurker respons revealed a lac of the severely the exception t tectlve, a find uothers. These cation and were Yorkers stood o lUSDital employ rulers regardl w the rum, ho BaNev (1960) 1 iii contradicto ruled in the fi lieu (1960) a Finally , ‘___7 31 60 mothers of normal children, (b) 48 mothers of severely retarded children, (c) M8 mothers of mildly retarded chil— dren, (d) 45 foster mothers who cared for selected retar— dates, (e) 11 supervising social workers, (f) 1H8 psycho- logical technicians in a state hospital, (g) 38 clerical and other employees in the same hospital, and (h) social worker responses predicted for foster mothers. Analysis revealed a lack of clear differentiation between mothers of the severely retarded and the mildly retarded, with the exception that the latter were generally more pro- tective, a finding that also characterized the foster mothers. These latter two groups generally had less edu— cation and were also of lower social status. Social workers stood out as being the most permissive while i hospital employees gave responses similar to the social workers regardless of their position. The usefulness of the PARI, however, has been questioned by Doll and Darley (1960) in the area of speech and hearing disorders and contradictory findings using this instrument have been noted in the field of psychopathology, i.e., Horowitz and Lovell (1960) and Zuckerman, Oltena and Monashkin (1958). Finally, in the last study to be cited in this area, Worchel and Worchel (1961) had a group of middle class parents of retarded children rate these children on 38 traits of adjustment and values. Ratings were also ob— tained from this group for their own normal children, other children It was found t cantly less fa nal child. Th carded childre ciency of par-en scale, whereas typical hell 5 retarded child lioantly from on normal chil above, that the the retarded an Elan the mean d child. Eolo er Attitu Only thre Wt literatu Draml>10ycrs to "31 Writers (D Salkind, 1962) shetardation) 32 other children, and their conception of an ideal child. It was found that the retarded child was rated signifi— cantly less favorably on personality traits than the nor— mal child. The distribution of the ratings on the re— tarded children was almost bimodal, indicating the ten— dency of parents to rate them on either extreme of the scale, whereas that for the normal children yielded the typical bell shaped curve. Parental ratings of their retarded children, interestingly, did not differ signi— ficantly from their ratings of children other than their . . own normal children. It was also found, in line with the above, that the mean discrepancy between the ratings on the retarded and ideal child was significantly higher than the mean discrepancy between the normal and ideal child. Employer Attitudes Only three systematic studies were found in the recent literature which were concerned with the attitudes of employers toward the mentally retarded although sev— eral writers (DiMichael, 1953; Blatt, 1961; Allan, 1962; Salkind, 1962) have expressed the opinion that the major deterrent to successful employment of the retarded is the generally negative attitude of employers. Cohen (1963) related the scores of 177 employers (in the immediate area of a training and research center miretardation) on a scale designed to measure attitudes toward hiring t creeuployer, t achecx list vne found, somewhat Lationship betw 22:. eption of r significant and inhis study we hartlage those of Cohen Lotionship betw 33:: of 283 con the retarded. ‘ it true of bus latte manufact at service ind life based on a Phelps (1 ilipletely cont SWally agre Ellloyed a 514 i towel and opi l: 132 service llll‘ast to Coh 33 toward hiring the retarded to the amount of education of the employer, the amount of contact with retardates, and a check list measuring knowledge about retardation. Cohen found, somewhat surprisingly, a significant negative re— lationship between attitudes and reported educational level. This was in spite of a significant positive re— lationship found between educational level and a realistic conception of retardation. The contact variable was not significant and Cohen concluded that employer attitudes in his study were relatively independent of knowledge. Hartlage (1965) reports findings which question those of Cohen (1963) just cited. Hartlage found no re— lationship between the educational level of 120 employers (out of 283 contacted) and their receptivity toward hiring the retarded. Hartlage did find, however, that the size and type of business or industry was significant; with large manufacturing industries being the most receptive and service industries the least. Hartlage's findings were based on a 15 item questionnaire. Phelps (1965) cited the results of a study which completely contradict Cohen's (1963) findings while sub— stantially agreeing with those of Hartlage (1965). Phelps employed a 5A item weighted questionnaire containing both factual and opinion statements and compared the responses 0f 132 service employers (of 257 contacted). Phelps, in contrast to Cohen, found a positive relationship between educational le sponses toward Phelps also fo size of the or lationship was of time of emp tween types of totel personnel retardates than ad nursing hon Attitude Change Only a fe literature whic altitude toward l'arlous groups More and afte retarded. m g 3“ educational level of personnel managers and attitude re- sponses toward the mentally retarded. As did Hartlage, Phelps also found a positive relationship between the size of the organization and attitudes. A positive re— lationship was also found between attitudes and length of time of employment. Differences were found too be- tween types of service industries, with hospital and motel personnel managers being more favorable to hiring retardates than hotel, laundry—dry cleaner, restaurant, and nursing home personnel managers. Attitude Change Only a few studies have apparently appeared in the literature which purport to be concerned with changes in attitude toward mental retardation. Four of these studies (Cleland & Chambers, 1959; Cleland & Cochrane, 1961; Kimbrell & Luckey, 196A; Sellin & Mulchahay, 1966) have employed the same basic methodology, i.e., testing of various groups (mainly high school and college students) before and after tours of institutions for the mentally retarded. In general, the results of these studies have been contradictory and inconclusive. For example, the control group in one study (Cleland & Cochrane, 1961) showed the most "attitudinal shift" even though this group was not subjected to the independent variable. It may be said, in brief, that (a) attitudes and information flr'i :‘Irfie 3;.“ ‘. ..v seen to be con rare in a posi tive direction Appel, w assess attitud two years afte completion for counseling scor with their own retarded childr cult to accept light have help changes were re as the authors iassage of time Bitter ( SeScions. Atti lildation in ge mics of their lardlug mental °f the scales ; hotly more err 35 seem to be confused in these studies, and (b) the changes were in a positive direction in some cases and in a nega— tive direction in others. Appel, Williams, and Fishell (1964) attempted to assess attitude changes in 21 mothers of retarded children two years after group counseling. Scores on a sentence completion form were compared at that time with pre- counseling scores. The parents became concerned less with their own feelings and more with the needs of their retarded children; however, they found it just as diffi— cult to accept the disability as before. A control group might have helped to determine whether the reported changes were really effected as a result of counseling, as the authors contend, or were merely a function of the passage of time. Bitter (1963) in a similar but somewhat better controlled study administered a four instrument battery to 16 parents before and after a parent education program involving group discussions and consisting of seven monthly sessions. Attitudes toward child-rearing and mental re— tardation in general as well as measures of the character— istics of their own trainable children and knowledge re- garding mental retardation were obtained. Parents as a group demonstrated significant changes in a positive direc- tion in democratic attitudes toward child—rearing on one Of the scales; however, these parents also made signifi— cantly more errors on the knowledge test after the educational ses tween parents w attending all s tic differentia rcterdation--al changes were en or partly the r nestion. it is of reviewed have 8 :Lvetasis of th httnan (1959). attitudinal lev were being Ideas although the in, lied would like lilo levels in inter lll). iii were neasu: “it measuring : Idol, While sov Silicon in the soul facets . belng me; IL | 36 educational sessions. Some differences were found be— tween parents who attended one or two sessions and those attending all seven on some of the concepts of the seman— tic differential used to measure attitudes toward mental retardation—-all in a positive direction. Whether these changes were entirely a function of the group sessions or partly the result of other factors remains a moot question. Conclusion It is of interest to note that none of the studies reviewed have employed an attitude scale constructed on the basis of the structural facet theory proposed by Guttman (1959). Thus it is entirely unclear just what attitudinal levels or sub-universes in the Guttman model i were being measured in most, if not all, of these studies, I although the impression here is that most of the scales used would likely fall at the more abstract and stereo— typic levels in Guttman's paradigm (see Figures l—U in Chapter III). It is also likely that at least some of Hmm were measuring mixtures of Guttman's facets, some were measuring facets not included by Guttman in his model, while some were not measuring attitudes at all but fall more in the realm of achievement tests since factual hmwledge only was being assessed. Lack of control over facets being measured as well as loose definitions of attitudes will likely continue to contribute to results with are not c cuntuadictor‘u. uit'r. regard to :u: this proble pudding that it is als fared which att 15550) uene fcun inducted in cc Although ‘ :1‘ the literatu. atlas seem to be iiudation, i.e. :scupation, amou iicu, and dental :3 Sl’stematical ”Sables or to it Seems z 370‘ ‘L5 to Systeu 7d“ t. thb gPOupS E in“ "ulngs are to 3 (D ./ 1‘21 . alwmg aceum 1 37 which are not comparable, inconsistent, and at times contradictory. Much the same can be said, of course, with regard to lack of control over subject variables but this problem appears to be more easily correctible, providing that instrumentation is adequate and comparable. It is also of note that not one study was encoun— tered which attempted to relate findings cross—culturally or cross—nationally. In fact, only three studies (Laing & Chazan, 1966; Schonnel & Watts, 1956; Schonnel & Rorke, 1960) were found in the American literature which were conducted in countries other than the United States. Although no clear consensus existed in the review of the literature, it does indicate that numerous vari— ables seem to be related to attitudes toward mental re— tardation, i.e., sex, education, social class, religion, occupation, amount of Knowledge, general value orienta— tion, and contact. Few of the studies, however, attempted to systematically control more than one or two of these variables or to relate verbal attitudes to actual behav— ior. It seems clear that research is needed which at— tempts to systematically control these variables across various groups and cultures if fruitful and generalizable findings are to ensue. Methodological Considerations In Cross—Cultural Research Jordan (1968), after reviewing the literature and fbllowing accumulated experience in an extensive attitudinal research proje crucial CPOSQ“ duced to those dent, with the problems conce and couparabil Relevanc : he in West German It is qu cable peSults Huts-national those potentia Lance is ackno {Wilkes 1955 While thr tical tranSlat; the coflcept is highly develop: Sanepal term 1: adage pI‘OVides tween various ; \ ‘ The gene mere othePwisg from intermew “Special Edu Paedagogische togik in Bonn. ”r Sllecial Edu 38 research project in eleven nations, concluded that the crucial cross—cultural methodological problems can be re— duced to those of relevancy, equivalency, and measure~ ment, with the latter being sub—divided into measurement problems concerned with content, structure, intensity, and comparability. Relevancy: Mental Retardation in West Germany It is quite obvious that if meaningful and compa— rable results are to be obtained in cross-cultural or cross—national attitudinal research the focus must be on those potential attitude referents or objects whose exis— tence is acknowledged in all the cultures to be compared (Duijker, 1955). While the German language does not provide an iden— tical translation of the concept "mental retardation,” the concept is nevertheless extremely relevant in that highly developed country.1 In the place of a broad, general term like ”mental retardation,” the German lan— guage provides descriptive terms which discriminate be— tween various levels of mental retardation. The two 1The general source of material in this section, where otherwise not documented, stems from notes gleaned from interviews with Dr. Hartmut Horn, Associate Professor Of Special Education and Educational Psychology in the Paedagogische Hochschule Ruhr——Abteilung fuer Heilpaeda— gogik in Dortmund (Ruhr College of Education-—Department Of Special Education in Dortmund). (uuu—iu;:titut of retardate ' Federal Repub are the Lernb The Ler ”NEW Corre for the educa' in the genera 0“ the other - retarded in t the Lernbehin “the total geistic‘oehind "r all Childpe 1967) are not Populatmn bee relatiVely I‘ec In order- sions fOr the are in Order» r in that °0untn gammy is the clue grade levr luage fPOm Si “18 V01k3chule t0 admisSion t 39 (non—institutionalized) levels of retardation or types of retardate with whom most of the population of the Federal Republic of Germany are likely to be familiar are the Lernbehinderte and the Geistigbehinderte. The Lernbehinderte ("educationally handicapped") roughly correspond to the American classification criteria for the educable or mildly retarded and their IQ's fall in the general range of 60—80. The Geistigbehinderte, on the other hand, roughly correspond to the moderately retarded in this country, with IQ's in the 40—60 range. The Lernbehinderte constitute approximately five percent of the total school population in West Germany while the Geistigbehinderte, although making up approximately .06% of all children born in the Federal Republic (Mutters, 1967) are not represented to this extent in the school population because education for these youngsters is a relatively recent innovation in Germany. In order to better understand educational provi— sions for the retarded in Germany, a few brief comments are in order regarding the organization of public schools hithat country. The basic educational institution in Germany is the Volkschule which generally has eight or nine grade levels and is attended by children ranging in age from six to fourteen. The first four grades in the Volkschule are attended by all children and are basic to admission to the Mittelschule or intermediate school to which app The intermed' higher educa uately 75-80 tolkschule a whereupon th tional or co skilled or se As was has tradition ststem for th other handica SpECial schoo title. Thus, for the retarw tiefective, am If a ch. the V01kschu1t 01‘ achievemen‘ “Mid is inder asIlecial schw Men come frox ”f them are ct 40 to which approximately 25% of German children gravitate. The intermediate school, in turn, is basic to subsequent higher education in a Hochschule or university. Approxi— mately 75—80% of German children, however, continue in the Volkschule and terminate their formal education at age 1A, whereupon they enter either an apprenticeship, a voca— tional or commercial school, or, failing that, become un— skilled or semi-skilled workers (Hylla & Kegel, 1958). As was noted in the introductory chapter, Germany has traditionally maintained a separate educational system for the educable mentally retarded, as well as for other handicapped children, which takes the form of special schools for each disability group whenever pos— sible. Thus, there are Sonderschulen or special schools for the retarded, the physically handicapped, the speech defective, and so forth (Hylla & Kegel, 1958). If a child fails one of the first four grades in the Volkschule twigg, he is given an IQ test and a battery Of achievement tests. If the tests confirm that the child is indeed retarded but educable he is then sent to a special school for Lernbehinderte. Most of these chil— dren come from the lowest socioeconomic class and many of them are considered culturally deprived. It is a commonly accepted maxim that the goals of the special schools for the mildly retarded are the same as those of the Volkschule. Gathen (1967), for example, states emphat' goals of the goal is permi (p. 68)." In rarely attain eta rate app from the Volk After 1 third of the preuticeships trades (e.g., remaining two- Skilled or se economy. While ed been provided training for t tarded has not limes, Mutter effective lobb‘ SWe fuer da °f federal soc the establish suitable educa Institutions h 1" West German 41 states emphatically that "the educational and training goals of the special schools can only be (and no other goal is permitted) the same as for the regular school (p. 68)." In reality, however, these academic goals are rarely attained and the Lernbehinderte generally achieve at a rate approximately two years behind that of children from the Volkschule at the time of graduation at age 1h, After leaving the special school, approximately one- third of the educable retarded are able to complete ap— prenticeships in some of the less demanding skilled trades (e.g., painting, stone masonry, etc.) while the remaining two—thirds generally are able to obtain un— skilled or semiskilled employment in Germany's booming economy. While educational facilities have traditionally been provided for the mildly retarded, education or training for the Geistigbehinderte or moderately re- tarded has not even been considered until very recent times. Mutters (1967) traces this development to the effective lobbying of a parents' organization ("Leben-~ shilfe fuer das geistig behinderte Kind") and passage of federal social legislation in 1961 which for the first time established the legal claim of these children to a suitable education. Since 1961, over 150 educational institutions have sprung up for the moderately retarded in West Germany, but as late as 196“ these special schools were ‘ gihle age ran will actually these childre at all, espec is compounded The emp‘ social and vo in special sc uoderately re 12 because of of waiting 11 remain in sch those youths c emllloyment in the rest find 1“ no small pa situation and It is in 1nGeruruany alt that it was of “flu retarded “this Dopul filings from Ge s“(tiers were W“ in the ea M2 schools were serving only about 15% of those in the eli— gible age range of 7—18. Mutters (1967) notes that it will actually take several more years before most of these children have any sort of educational opportunity at all, especially in the rural areas where the problem is compounded by transportation difficulties. The emphasis in these special schools is generally social and vocational as opposed to the academic emphasis in special schools for the mildly retarded. Many of the moderately retarded do not enter school until the age of 12 because of both lack of readiness and the existence of waiting lists, but they are generally permitted to remain in school until age 20. Approximately 20% of those youths completing their special education find employment in a competitive situation while nearly all the rest find employment in sheltered workshops, thanks in no small part again to Germany's favorable economic situation and chronic labor shortage. It is interesting to note, and common knowledge in Germany although documentation is almost impossible, that it was official Nazi policy to eliminate the moder— ately retarded pOpulation in Germany and that over 50% of this population was actually executed before grum— blings from German soldiers over rumors that disabled soldiers were also to be killed put an end to this pro- gram in the early l9UO's. The futility, if not the inhumanity, 0f matunlike ti aeh'and seve rubric class minded, howe easeof their hhh. Ftsurehent: ln comps sayto know, aeusuallyr id ih5,0ne spea wh,toward ma mhtsout tha hitramework i‘hwmruarized l Cognit expect (b) 0t Object <- Affect negati 3- Policy ('What am r!- O ,__4 £3 “3 inhumanity, of this policy is attested to by the fact that unlike the majority of mildly retarded, the moder— ately and severely retarded emanate from all social and economic class levels (Hutt & Gibby, 1965). The mildly retarded, however, were not affected by this pogrom be— cause of their usefulness in the labor force of the Third Reich. Measurement: Dimensions of Attitudes In comparative research the first thing it is neces— sary to know, of course, is what to compare. Attitudes are usually identified by their objects or referents-— thus, one speaks of attitudes toward the retarded, toward war, toward marriage, and so forth. Duijker (1955) points out that attitudes toward the same referent, within the framework of one culture, have many dimensions which are summarized as follows: 1. Cognitive orientation: (a) Perceptions, beliefs, expectations concerning attributes of object. (b) Other cognitive processes with regard to object. 2. Affective orientation: (a) Net positive— negative affect. (b) Specific affects. 3. Policy orientation: (a) General principle ('What should be done'). (b) Personal pre— diction ('What would I do if . . ?' . (0) Personal commitment ('What should—~or must—_ I do?‘): (i) Judgment as to what 'I should do'; (ii) Urgency to do it-—Guilt feelings, self castigation, etc., over not doing it. 4. Degree of uncertainty or conviction with regard to l and 3; intensity with regard to 2. Degree of covertness or overtness. Degree of consistency (or ambivalence): (a) Within 1, 2, 3, A and 5. (b) Between 1, 2, 3, A and 5. GNU? ' y. Degre space to) A with i ject. Other 8, Consc: y Tenac: i E 4, J L - it. lsol aotl 5 a1 tr All of i satpossibili :hhhghts the htuudes with Thseproblems fished in con tstrict c parison or deal will least we c semch des uhti~dime seems to b Faults (p ishw followi: hmsofcontn edgnthe gre: Tsteward inter htheprecedir Suchman t gwflint in ct t ‘ AA 7. Degree of salience of object in personal life space: (a) Frequency of contact with object. (b) Avoidability—unavoidability of contact with object. (o) Perceptual salience of ob— ject. (d) Ego involvement with object. (e) Other motivational involvement with object. Consciousness-unconsciousness of attitude. Tenacity (resistance to change) of l, 2, 3, u: 5: 6: 79 8- 10. Isolation from or interdependence with other attitudes (Duijker, 1955, p. 560). \000 All of these dimensions (and possibly more) repre— sent possibilities for independent variation and the list highlights the many problems inherent in the study of attitudes within the framework of a single culture. These problems, as Duijker (1955) emphasizes, are mul- tiplied in comparative research. A strict comparison of attitudes would mean a com— parison on all dimensions simultaneously. This ideal will perhaps prove irrealizable; but the least we can and must do is to include in our re— search design as many dimensions as possible. A multi-dimensional approach to comparative research seems to be our only hope of obtaining valuable results (p. 561). The position is taken here that constructing an attitude scale based on principles derived from Guttman's facet theory (Guttman, 1959), such as will be described in the following chapter, provides the most fruitful means of controlling for and including in one's research design the greatest number of attitudinal content, struc— ture, and intensity dimensions or components described hithe preceding list. Suchman (196A) has suggested yet another problem prevalent in cross—cultural research in general, i.e., lack of M agreat deal studies can b given to the hi for compa These hyp facto and Mp": t studies, This lack the main have been real need comparati of data ( Suchman iiit‘icult to it has a "poo: Qliflcult t0 ( suchvuan feels ROPE SUCCESSf‘y toad the Simpj While 11 sumo“ tO des Study Of which appai‘ent in ti u Qy’ the I‘esee MM by u 45 lack of a priori hypothesis formation. He states that a great deal of the current inadequacy of comparative studies can be traced to an initial lack of consideration given to the formulation of hypotheses which are meaning— ful for comparative purposes. These hypotheses are usually formulated ex post facto and sometimes represent a rather desperate attempt to find, within a series of disconnected studies, data bearing upon similar hypotheses. This lack of comparative data is probably one of the main reasons why cross cultural comparisons have been so unsuccessful in the past. real need still exists for the formulation of comparative hypotheses preceding the collection of data (p. 13A Suchman (196A) also points out that while it is difficult to tell whether one group is ”more prejudiced” or has a "poorer attitude" than another group, it is less difficult to determine whether, within both groups, pre— judice is related to some other variable such as contact. Suchman feels that truly comparative hypotheses will be more successful on a correlational level which goes be~ yond the simple demographic or census level of description. While it is beyond the scope of the present dis- cussion to describe the design of the larger international study of which this research is a part, it should become apparent in the subsequent chapters that Suchman's criti— cisms have been heeded in the present design——which is to Say, the research is largely correlational and a number 0f a priori hypotheses have been formulated. Eauivalem'” ti attention I equivalency. concerned will is quite clear different v 'hited States literally) in silvers (e.g., shed, the in: tut rather, Q then are simil tion of concey ilvu one langt hovledge of e if the various 13310“ 0f ques Wicclt and W91 familia ill with local Similarl tical ciI‘cumst Equivalency In cross—cultural or cross—national research, if the concepts to be tested in the several laboratories of different cultures are to be comparable, a great deal of attention must be paid to instrument and sampling equivalency. Since the present international research is concerned with attitudes and since attitudes are imbedded in and form a part of a culture specific way of life, it is quite clear that identical instruments cannot be used in different cultures. An attitude scale used in the A 3 United States cannot be used in the same form (translated literally) in France or Germany. As Duijker (1955) and ’ others (e.g., Suchman, 1964; Jordan, 1968) have empha- sized, the instruments must not be necessarily identical, but rather, equivalent so that the results obtained with them are similar enough to be comparable. The determina— tion of concept equivalence in translating an instrument from one language to another of course demands prior knowledge of and familiarity with the cultural meanings of the various concepts in question. The accurate trans— lation of questions from one language to another is very difficult and requires the assistance of competent per— sonnel familiar not only with the language in question but with local cultural considerations as well. Similarly, a degree of specialized knowledge of local circumstances is mandatory in the selection of simples. Age comparability equivalent to the samples m vithin each n Duijker tinds: expli search, and i; garticipation apeople. Th social scient compared. In 9:” specializer trough the sr lessor of Sper it the Departs 91‘ Education ; ESFChologie dé flier Heilpaede DP- Hort Education, SOC test construe t Sit area has t miti- In a 553%” c I h 18 at “7 samples. Again, the concern in sample selection is with comparability, which in turn demands the selection of equivalent but not necessarily identical samples since the samples must be adapted to the specific situation within each nation. Duijker (1955) states that the type of local know— ledge most helpful in comparative research is of two kinds: explicit knowledge, based upon methodical re- search, and implicit knowledge, acquired through long participation in and familiarity with the way of life of a people. This combination is found most readily in social scientists belonging to the various nations being compared. In the present study, this ideal combination of specialized knowledge and assistance was obtained through the services of Dr. Hartmut Horn, Associate Pro- fessor of Special Education and Educational Psychology in the Department of Special Education of the Ruhr College of Education in Dortmund (Seminar fuer Heilpaedagogische Psychologie der Paedagogische Hochschule Ruhr, Abteilung fuer Heilpaedagogik in Dortmund). Dr. Horn has an extensive background in Germany in education, sociology, and general psychology as well as test construction and development, and his special inter- est area has been and is the social—psychology of dis— ability. In addition, his interest in cross-cultural research is attested to by his long association with the "viii yeutschen lns iorschunE (Ge in Education) Extensi tonal collabo Ir. horn who translation 0 latguage but . addition, Dr. motlems invo securing the 2 search instru: Bl! answer sh: Izete Univers dished betwer 7 "' ' ' "'.' " A8 Deutschen Institut Fuer Internationale Paedagogische Forschung (German Institute for International Research in Education) in Frankfurt. Extensive correspondence and several days of per— ‘ sonal collaboration in Dortmund were accomplished with ‘ Dr. Horn who was largely responsible not only for the translation of the research questionnaire into the German language but also for equivalent sample selection. In addition, Dr. Horn personally supervised the logistical problems involved in printing the translated instrument, securing the appropriate samples, administering the re- search instrument, transferring the obtained data to IBM answer sheets, and dispatching the latter to Michigan State University for analysis. All of this was accom- plished between August, 1968 and May, 1969. A A Germ guyfl “on < construction :ezhod of inti ‘ ‘5 (p cf theory attitude univs is sub-structL related accorc elements they attitude unive Esampling of and also enabl Tarious compon 5150 provide a liess~national iirisons. CHAPTER III INSTRUMENTATION AND VARIABLES A German translation of a new instrument developed by Jordan (l969)-—the Attitude Behavior Scale-Mental Retardation (ABS—MR)-—was employed in this study. The construction of the ABS—MR scale (Appendix A) was guided by a facet design which makes it possible to construct items by a systematic a priori design instead of by the nwthod of intuition or by the use of judges. Guttman's facet theory (Guttman, 1959, I961) specifies that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be sub—structured into components which are systematically related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. The sub—structuring of an attitude universe into components or elements facilitates a sampling of items within each of the derived components, and also enables the prediction of relationships between various components of the attitude universe. This should also provide a set of clearly defined component areas for cross-national, cross-cultural, and/or sub—cultural com- parisons. 49 W V W . ’L‘L“ =7 — ”I‘D Succihc and anall’SiS ascale by a :0 be able to result from t would he the accomplishes. liuhat alreal slimming co. i.e., calling facet design, leglns. in an an :astide and V; l”PGSpect to “lie necessa1 "Ultiplicatior Facet Theory and the ABS-MR Scale (Criterion) Succinctly stated, what is sought by facet design and analysis is to be able to construct the content of a scale by a semantic, logical, a priori technique and to be able to predict the order structure which would result from the empirical data. What would happen then would be the reverse of what in reality factor analysis accomplishes. Factor analysis tries to make sense out of what already has been done by a mathematical process of forming correlational clusters and then naming them, i.e., calling them factors. As opposed to this approach, facet design, in essence, names the facets before one begins. Guttman's Four Level Theory In an analysis of research on racial attitudes by Bastide and van den Berghe (I957), Guttman proposed that in respect to intergroup attitudes and behavior there are three necessary facets which may be combined according to definite procedures to determine the semantic component structure of four important sub—universes or levels of the attitude universe. Figure 1 presents these facets. One element from each and every facet must be repre_ sented in any given statement, and these statements can be grouped into profiles of the attitude universe by multiplication of the facets A x B x C, yielding a (A) a] belief a2 overt ac .- rlg- 1 structure of £x2x200m files in all, elements in c mereas prof i Using t; search as a b: me semantic : ion attitudix iiEume 2. Gui lu attitude Wetly 0Pde CU”Mil orde milhis of at levels of atti ”tions are 51 Facets (A) (B) (C) Subject's Behavior Referent Referent's Intergroup Behavior al belief ‘ b subject's group cl comparative a2 overt action b2 subject himself c2 interactive Fig. l.-—Basic facets used to determine component structure of an attitude universe. 2 x 2 x 2 combination of elements or eight semantic pro— files 1n all, i.e., (l) alblcl’ (2) alblc2, . . . (8) b 'It can be seen that permutations l and 2 have two a2 2C2. elements in common (albl) and one different (c1 and 02), whereas profiles 1 and 8 have no elements in common. Using the Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) re— search as a basis, Guttman (1959) was able to facetize the semantic structure of their attitude items into the four attitudinal sub—universes or levels as shown in Figure 2. Guttman reasoned that if an attitude item can be distinguished semantically by the three facets ABC outlined in Figure 1, then an individual item could have one, two, or three subscript ”2" elements for a total of four attitude levels. Logically, if the elements are correctly ordered within facets, and if the facets are correctly ordered with respect to each other, a semantic analysis of attitude items will reveal n + 1 types or levels of attitude items. While a total of eight per— mutations are possible on the four levels (one each on levels 1 and L the four permu Bastide and va w l 2 3 A Fig. 2,- aztitude level The mode and the descri svttman (1959) ileum deal w éioup (bl) com “A“ the attit teas of a diff mnespoming mm (b2) Pepor theattitude 0 A cOlllmon :lfiuttman, 1. mm a We\ak to Jew the att ”elements a .re attitude 0' 52 levels 1 and A and three each on levels 2 and 3) only the four permutations shown in Figure 2 were studied by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957). Level Profile Descriptive Label 1 alblcl Stereotype 2 alblc2 Norm 3 alb2c2 Hypothetical Interaction A a2b2c2 Personal Interaction Fig. 2.—-Facet profiles and descriptive labels of attitude levels. The model in Figure 2 depicts the attitudinal levels and the descriptive labels for each level defined by Guttman (1959). An attitude item corresponding to level 1 would deal with the belief of the subject (al) that his group (bl) compared itself (Cl) favorably or unfavorably with the attitude object in question, in this case mem— bers of a different racial group. Similarly, an item corresponding to level A would deal with the subject's own (b2) reported behavior (a2) in interacting (02) with the attitude object. A common meaning for the orderings was suggested by Guttman, i.e., they show in each case a progression from a wgag to a strong form of behavior of the subject toward the attitude object. That is, the more subscript 'Q" elements a set contains, the greater the strength of the attitude or behavior. Facet an tude items PTO tasis for PPEG correlation ma ae written to levels closest :rms should co lith more dist One cannot each corre of the sen pose to pr tive sizes purely sem p, 32A). 71:15 predictiO scale of their :ically. In 0 reveal an orde: :3“ each level limeighbors a Stated d. lull should re‘ “Simplex" ordei istics of (a) a ““0 mint (Whl dots of eithi 53 Facet analysis of the semantic structure of atti— tude items provides a social psychological theoretical basis for predicting the structure of the empirical inter— correlation matrix of Guttman's four levels: if items are written to correspond to each of the four levels, then levels closest to each other should be more similar and thus should correlate more highly with each other than with more distant levels. One cannot propose to predict the exact size of each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of the semantics of universe ABC, but we do pro— pose to predict a pattern or structure for rela- tive sizes of the statistical coefficients from purely semantic considerations (Guttman, 1959, p. 324). This prediction was stated by Guttman (1959) as the Con— tiguity Hypothesis which states that subuniverses or attitude levels closer to each other in the semantic scale of their definitions will also be closer statis— tically. In other words, the intercorrelations should reveal an ordering such that the maximum predictability of each level is attainable from its immediate neighbor or neighbors alone. Stated differently, the resulting correlation ma— trix should reveal what Guttman (1966) has termed a 'simplex" ordering. A simplex exhibits the character- istics of (a) ascending correlations starting from the zero point (where the two coordinates meet) to the end pOints of either axis, and (b) closer correlations ielmcen adja one or more late higher ‘ higher with cmrelate hit and so forth level by leve humai(l953 berghe (1957: shuttions c lationship ma onePeversal TABLE l-“Wp lations \ Level \ 1 2 3 A GUttman up f0r attil if); I .mlevels 01 5A between adjacent levels than correlations separated by one or more levels. Consequently, level 1 would corre- late higher with level 2 than it would with level 3 but higher with level 3 than with level A; level 2 would correlate higher with levels 1 and 3 than with level A and so forth. An example of an hypothetical matrix of level by level correlations illustrating the character- istics of a simplex is presented in Table 1. When Guttman (1959) rearranged the data of Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) according to the semantic structural con— siderations of facet theory, this predicted simplex re- lationship was essentially obtained, i.e., there was only one reversal in the predicted structure. TABLE l.——Hypothetical matrix of level-by—level corre— lations illustrating simplex characteristics. Level 1 2 3 A 1 ___ 2 .60 --- 3 50 6O -—- A NO 50 .60 ——— Jordan's Six Level Adaptation Guttman's (1959) paradigm of facet design and anal- ysis for attitude items allows for three facets and hence four levels of attitudes. Theorizing that there might be other pertim ty Guttman as analysis for to include I“ i pamded and mc tents is shov Conjoir defined as t'r iirom low to liordan, l96‘8 lure of attit iehtly of ite tion defines it will lllDE yields 311 combinati lemations, no ”Moments fpt lfl'lldgment a‘ flale, Maier. ilea by DPOVit lion of 98mm 32 permutatim deleting the :imatims Or l mu these Six other pertinent facets, but accepting those identified by Guttman as appropriate, Jordan (1968) expanded facet analysis for attitude items dealing with specified groups to include five facets and hence six levels. This ex- panded and more inclusive set of facets and their ele- ments is shown in Figure 3. Conjoint struction in this model is operationally defined as the ordered sets of the five facets of Figure 3 from low to high across all five facets simultaneously (Jordan, 1968). It is that part of the semantic struc- ture of attitude items which can be determined indepen— dently of item content. In other words, conjoint struc— tion defines the level of attitude being measured. It will be noted that the multiplication of facets ABCDE yields a possible 32 combinations of elements; not all combinations are logical because of semantic consi— derations, however, and the selection of a "best" set of components from the 32 possible was still partly a matter of judgment at the time of the construction of the ABS—MR scale. Maierle (1969) later extended research in this area by providing a set of logical rules for the selec— tion of permutations and found that 12 of the possible 32 permutations were semantically consistent. In con— structing the ABS-MR, however, six of these element com— binations or permutations seemed particularly fruitful and these six combinations represent the six levels of r1, W 56 cm mo sowpodhpw pcflOncoo oGHELopoU ow HwCOHpmmoqo mo Hm0flpmepogse Hm LOfl>m£mm m.90po< go CflwEom Amy COHpomLopCH m ComHLMQEOU H poe>w£om mmmmmmwmmw m_p0po< ADV U U m ,Hfimw O mpocuo Ho 90po< on mpoowm .mmpo>flcs coopwppm pow: mucosa cammmll.m .wflm oocoflmogxo mo moflaop HQ LOH>msom pcopomom Amv maom mm mponpo aw pompouom A... .l. DLOLJO 054 DJ nu.A.U..J 1. .... .. 4 H. H J c _ no > U a a C J .l.. L. .To 3::3 .J .u.>.tvdt.t.... .....s ~... . ... ~ a o. S.HU£:C . TE UL 1... J MPH .u \.. a ... d. U ~ ..“u.~...\t:t weapapue who do coupozspm pcflohcoo men too s0H>mcom Hmcompom Hmzpo< use»: m H CH owHomme .UoUgMch who mm AzHHmzpomv mo Emumsm HeCOApaeflome <--.m .mflm oQCoHLooxo o>m£ .COHmemeom prcozlonom h0H>d£om m sea: ewefipoe zHHwCOHmeoQo mm H .emesmpms mes Apnoea xcfiepv m H mwcHHoom HmCOmpom csz ouompopCH oaHHmoHpocpong mo mo mm H cons Apoommmv ooCoHLono H mu Ho RC L0H>mcom .ooppmpop on» cpHs pomsmch AoHsozv a; Hmofipmepogsm Ho H m o m HMCOmLom zHHmoHpogpoazc H o>oHHoo H mp Ho coprus>m.©oohmPoL esp csz pomLoQCH AUHsong Homo: chomsom Ho H mm zHHmoHpoSp0Q%£ mpozpo oo>oHHoo H .Uoppwpog mp Ho Emoz HmuoHoom ogp cpHs pompoch ApHsogmv N”HHwOH Ho H H o m luocpomhn mmozpo o>mHHon whocuo .oophwpoh Ho Ho mahpompopm HmpoHoom zHHmpCoE can on othEoo zHHMOH Ho HD Hm Ipmzpoahs mhwcpo ®>®HHoo whocuo osz ®>Hp Hhowoo mucosopcpm Meccapacfiooo mownmommNU Homewomeme Aha H p om ewe H H H m Ho 9 o m o HmeHoamHs caauonm poems H®>®H pigure 5 and for each leVl vords, the A first level C measuring att mitional stat - stems on the lefimitional :‘oath down tn: Up to tl teem on what l {lint structic Teen scale le :35 counterpar attitude level ml differenti. 2:erout five at iidil10ml face emotion, and 531'“ StI‘llctior is con“ of a to 59150 illustra 19., the degre “fish . the SUbjel Gistill througl u. correspondE 59 Figure 5 and correspond to the definitional statements for each level illustrated in this figure. In other words, the introductory statements for all items on the first level of the ABS—MR (exclusive of those items measuring attitude intensity) correspond to the defi- nitional statement for level 1 in Figure 5; all item stems on the second level of the ABS—MR correspond to the definitional statement for level 2 in Figure 5, and so forth down through level 6. Up to this point in the discussion the focus has been on what has been defined by Jordan (1968) as "con- joint struction," which refers to the differences be— tween scale levels of the ABS—MR on facets A through E. The counterpart to conjoint struction, which specifies attitude level, is "disjoint struction,” which specifies and differentiates the content of the items of the ABS—MR Unpugh five additional facets F through J. The five additional facets specifying item content, or disjoint struction, and the relationship between conjoint and dis— joint struction on the ABS—MR are shown in Figure 6 in Um form of a mapping sentence. Facets K and L in Figure 6also illustrate the scales "response mode struction," 1-e., the degree of favorableness and intensity with When the subject responds to the items structured by facets A through J. Thus, every response of'every sub— Ject corresponds to a combination of elements in facets LOH>fl£®2 0.LOUO< LCH>G£OI (H0 CHUEOD n ZDLSLOJCH U.(~ODO< MCuU/V .HCW>GLDI DCQLQVTI HCTLQQOE Am: An: as :3 ~Hproa mx Hmsusmc we Ravage o>Huwmwc Hx Apcm mocmHm>v szHHQMmHo Hm3pom mm amusecme empsnflppum HH I! Hw>wq phase va mocon> Axv ZOHBODmBm moo: mmzommmm nCOHpmHmL QSOHM anabcooom m NAFH zHHEom ocm xow m COHpmHmeoH If whooonm COHumsHm>m Amv zHHmCOHmeon we mHHmoHpmsuoam: o 90H>mswm w.pooo< no cHwEoo Amv ocw ommmHoz .zuHMog mm pcoEzOHQEo mg m m COHpmozpw mm mop : 30H .w COHumoLooh m own ms AcommuMMMEH EszoE mm chH>Ho>CHV mCOprHoL QSOLw xmmEHLQ mm pH: H: m H Hv cwHL Hm mpHMLp Hmcowhma Hm oucmpLOmEH wcoHpmsuHm omHH on Ago onBoamBm BZHOhmHQ m m m N Amv pommmucH U mHom Ho Hosp wDCoHmexm Ho Awflpv mHom Hm Amv oLMQEOO HU mascuo o omzpv moHHop Q mLono m h0H>mcom Illlllll :opmsmch m_hopo< gono< .L0H>mzom osmhomom ucopomom ADV ADV Am; Ad; ZOHBoDmBm BZHOWZOD HML0H>mconnHmOHmch m Hoom H0H>m£om oUSppr< map opzposhum wo oucmpCom wcwqawE < .w .me o>Huoommm m o>Hpch00 H saws pumps AHV «'1 -r-i "'1 RCH onLMQoL hHHdpcoE ocu LpHsv flow mmuzhflpppm pomHnsmv land L for sponds to a facet A thro level 5. At the ordering disjoint str Consequently on level 5 ( lthrough E result, item lies about t t0 the speci facets F thr Guttma leery refer in a mapping and that Illa lation of H”. mm Often j and empirica FPom t Figure 6) til l measure of j mere selecte 61 K and L for every attitude item, which in turn corre- sponds to a combination of elements for each and every facet A through J——with the exception of those items on level 5. At the time of the construction of the ABS—MR the ordering system had not been as fully developed for disjoint struction as it had for conjoint struction. Consequently, it was not possible to structure items on level 5 (Personal Feelings) beyond the conjoint facets A through E and the response mode facets K and L. As a result, items on this level simply ask for general feel— ings about the retarded without ordering these feelings to the specific situations represented by the disjoint facets F through J. Guttman (1959) has suggested that any coherent theory referring to empirical research can be expressed in a mapping sentence similar to that shown in Figure 6 and that "lack of theoretical clarity as to the specifi- cation of the facets of the mapping may be the situation that often impedes the connection between abstract theory and empirical work (p. 323)." From the complete facet design illustrated in Figure 6, twenty content items, each with a corresponding measure of intensity (described in the following section), were selected for each of the six levels of the ABS—MR so that the final attitude scale consisted of 2A0 items. An ide {1959) propc observing a variant of f nonof face lh-Mh scale less, this i the first at lulsaccord first of a f facet theory uahs devel HitltUdes an Pfipectively 55116165 by E Guttma lanes of int A Single bEtvveen to diI‘ec question Since an; is easil‘ tensity l ll 62 An ideal, complete research project, as Guttman (1959) proposed in another context, would consist of observing a value of K and L for each subject on each variant of facets F through J for each level permuta— tion of facets A through E. Clearly, studies using the ABS—MR scale will fall short of this ideal. Neverthe— less, this instrument represents what is believed to be the first attitude scale constructed on an a priori basis according to facet theory. The ABS—MR was the first of a family of scales to be developed using a facet theory model (Jordan, 1968). The second and third scales developed through this approach, measuring racial attitudes and attitudes toward the emotionally disturbed respectively, have already been successfully employed in studies by Erb (1969), Hamersma (1969), and Maierle (1969). Intensity Guttman and Foa (1951) have emphasized the impor- tance of intensity measures in attitude scales. A single question ordinarily cannot distinguish between changes due to intensity and those due to direction. A change in response to a single question may be due to either factor, or to both. Since any single question is usually biased, as is easily seen from the theory of scale and in— tensity analysis, the use of a single question for the study of effect, or change, or even for com— paring groups, is quite inadvisable (p. 53). Suchman (1950) has suggested that the intensity of atti— tudes may be estimated by asking a question about inten— sity immediately following a content question. One form "How stI categori and ”Not after ea tensity content dent is This 1 imensity of 5,the three ’h, u are are p chh answer? lvariation tnmne whet A5"unpleas The AB itinstantiate Wifemale, lll rehablli “anemia. area of disal liEUlap edUC; SOllhotpore le‘ ANS at that ulelemEHta] in. “hzelBPitj [fish of a D] 63 One form used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?” with answer categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly,” and "Not so strongly.” Repeating such a question after each content question yields a series of in— tensity answers. Using the same procedure as for content answers, these are scored and each respon— dent is given an intensity score (p. 219). This latter procedure was adopted to measure the intensity of attitudes on the ABS—MR. On levels 1 through ‘ "fairly sure,” and 5, the three alternatives "not sure,‘ ”sure" are presented to the question "How sure are you of this answer?" after each content item in these scales. A variation of this procedure was used on level 6 to de— termine whether a reported experience with the retarded was "unpleasant," "in between," or "pleasant.” Standardization Study The ABS—MR was administered to three groups in a standardization study: (a) 88 MSU graduate students (A6 female, A2 male) in a course in medical information for rehabilitation counselors and special education teachers—~students studying to be professionals in the area of disabling or handicapping conditions, (b) 633 regular education students (A26 female, 207 male) at the sophomore level and constituting all MSU education stu— dents at that level during the 1968 Winter Term, and (c) 523 elementary school teachers (381 female, 1A2 male) in Belize (British Honduras). The groups were chosen on the basis of a presumed difference in age, education, and cultural or ence regard in s01 has said ”tl adifficult lnastasi's : teen further volves the I attitudes; altitudes cc sation with .t would see assure the S littely anon Standardizat Almanp, Anothe. lined by Ana; tween Vel‘bal l leads, does 1 . lords?\0P t< out that disc tildes and 0V5 “lilies. The 6A cultural orientation, as well as knowledge and experi- ence regarding mental retardation. Validity In somewhat of an understatement, Anastasi (1961) has said "the validation of attitude measures presents a difficult problem (p. 5A5).” In the years since Anastasi's statement the problem has apparently not been further resolved. One aspect of this problem in— volves the relationship between "public" and "private" attitudes: how do the individual's publicly expressed attitudes compare with the opinions he voices in conver— sation with intimate friends or with the stranger he never expects to see again? This aspect of the problem, it would seem, is largely insolvable beyond attempts to assure the subject that his responses will remain com— pletely anonymous. This procedure was employed in the standardization study as well as in the research in Germany. Another aspect of the validity problem, as out— lined by Anastasi (1961), concerns the relationship be— tween verbal and non-verbal overt behavior. In other words, does the individual suit his actions to his words?——or to his attitude scale score? Anastasi points out that discrepancies between verbally expressed atti— tudes and overt behavior have been noted in several studies. The attitude items in the ABS-MR scale, as in all atti the advanta facet theor; to differen‘ stereotypic of most att experiences tionship be‘ ever to be ] facet theor: “Ported tel tides the 0; 0tier five ; lilavior" 15 Table Elices for t J'al‘dization Samples, 16V correlation and Stillman! hellZe Sampl ”38 with 1 lrlgeneI‘al s Thar from ‘tollld' do a A Letter Dredi llllOUldv be . 65 in all attitude scales, are verbalizations of behavior; the advantage inherent in an attitude scale based on facet theory, however, is that the verbalizations refer to different levels of behavior and go beyond the usual stereotypic, comparative, abstract and hypothetical levels of most attitude scales to verbalizations about affective experiences and concrete, overt behavior. If the rela— tionship between verbal attitudes and overt behavior is ever to be further specified, it may well be through a facet theory approach. The inclusion of level 6——actual reported behavior——in the ABS—MR scale, for example, pro— vides the opportunity to predict and analyze which of the other five levels correlate highest with this ”actual behavior" level. Table 2 shows the "conjoint" intercorrelation ma— trices for the three sample groups employed in the stan— dardization study. It will be noted that for the two MSU samples, level 5, "personal feelings,” showed the highest correlation with level 6, as predicted by facet theory and Guttman‘s (1959) Contiguity Hypothesis. For the Belize sample, the highest correlation obtained for level 6 was with level A——"personal hypothetical behavior." In general support of the facet theory approach, it would appear from these results that what an individual says he 'would' do and what he 'feels' toward the retarded are better predictors of his behavior than what he thinks 'should' be done. .M.—E|.UL< H0>®H XHC USU CO SLICLE :3“\_1...\.._Y..:..U.:..J.L .HQL :CWJUJLJS J-.H\o.fi.v:..0 .HC DOUHLHULE CCWJNH.DLI~OUII.N .nHQQHEE 66 .ooCHHLooss ohm mCHsooLo xm HQEHm CH mvammewme M mo oSHm> HMQHoHsom .00. u Hosea mo. om .wo. n Ho>oH me. up w mo osz> HmoHthom .mH. u Ho>oH mo. no N no osz> HMQHpHno: .mmm u 2m .mmm u ZN as u f It- as. mmw ms. mHm ma s -t- mm. as. mo. :0. as. s .. Hm. mu. mum mo. so It: Hm. mH. mad AH. m Ill mm. 0H. MAJ AH. m lll :m. mam mH. no In: mm. mm. Hm.. s In: mm. Hm. me : it: ms.smmu OH. --- mm. mm m --- ml not. m --- 3m. :. --tsmm N ...m:: m ---ssm. lll H til A it- w m z m m H Ho>cq w m z m m H Hc>oq w m z m m H Ho>mq masoeoeoe osflfiom mmpemespm oom am am: HmpeoeSUm masseuse pm: .m I o>c z mm< H H me one so masonw COHpmNHopmocmom moo COHpossum chOHCQQ mo mmoanmE :oaochssoolv.m mgm~|WQ< @anw munumu. [r71 Amcdwt~ «.MMuNyfinw mimqtdyflallem. quwwaFH WHAMHU $12.: USN. mfllfljfiufluvfd mulmmmln BI .33 ...-3.1. .1233 .35. 21.65:. 53:: a... « 5:: . 3:. 3 3.2.3.: .5. 5:. 5:33.. ...-i: ....».f ....u- out: .2: 1.2:. :o- . .35...- .23. Zia-Sm ...—u: out: 3 .... in: ... a: 13...... .3... 5 3:5 5 ...-:33; 2‘53: N u. «HISVQM‘ .=.u.: .3. ...:33 .522. .2: 53-35: .5332323 2.- .5332: .33.... ... 5.1:. N a 3:3 .31.: 1.3:: n 57:... £21313. .15: .31... 5f... 3.: .u. ...: a... «...... .2 £238. 7O I .An .8. of. SA 8.. :3 8.: 3.. a. up I'll] :. a... ...: 2d .3. 2.: 2.. .2 ma vililllalt :. 2.. no." 3.. m: 8.. 3.: .3 {ix . __Am ..Au 38V ...... ...: t; as. 3.: 2.. 3. S: 3.: 2m 3.: 5.: a. 2.: 8.: a: 3.22:2 1...; .M me ...An 389 :5 on; 3.: a: 3." E.“ R. at: 34 :m 2.: an: .3 2.: a... on» luv-3 . _— . u . . . no «Sn-‘33 an nu ”A. ... Ax 38V and 2.. :4 E” a...“ a.“ a: 3.. o... e: :3 R . E. a. n S n . .. .R m . Am ... Am ...A. 33V and: 3.. 24 3. 2A :5 3.. 2.: 8.: a: .... E: 3 .... ....n 93 .225 a. 2 . m . . .3. :10 S 1 m A. ..An 389 2.3 a: 2.. an s... z." E .... a... 2. 2.: 2.: no no N 2 ~ .2 u . . «2.6:: .2 m A. S. a... N1. 2.: Sn 3.. 3.: n1 2.: 3.. Sn 3.. 3.: a. 3 ~ 2 a :3 ll lll|‘\.!\\ u A. .n A“ .xA. 33V 8.: ...n :2 tn 2; 2A .... :3 2.. a: 2.. 3A 3 a... a?“ a: $23.... .2 m m A. .u A. .. Am .: A. «8.2V 2.... a: E... S. 3.. a; n: 3.. 3.. a: :2" 2.. S ...... 3.. one fins-.2: .2 m n An .nA u .. Aw 33V 3.5 a." :4 2. $4 3.» ... SA a... :3 3.. S... a. ...... S; Re 56! a a m nAm .u A; .uAm ..A: 380 1.: a... .... n: 3.. 3.. 1.. 3.. 3.. :m 2.. mn.~ 3 2.. 3.. =3 .2 cu rll . Am ..An .uAm 38V s... 3.. 3a ...... a.» :.. :n .1. :5 .5 .... z... 2 n... a...” :3 P?» u. .2 .Am .u A. .nAm 38V ...: .... 2.: 3. 8.: 3.: E: 3.: ...: .3 3.: 2.: B 3.. .... as :53: a. .3 m n ha .uA m 339 3;: z. 3.: no. 2.. :.. an: 2.. 2.. i: 3.. no... 2 3.. 3.. 2m :31 a. ..N m a A. .u A. ..Am 33V 8.... 2.. .... ... 2.. 3.. an 3.. 2.. no: 3.. as; S 2.. n... a. 35.: E .3 n An .. Au .mAu ...A: 38V :11 8.: 2.. Sn ...n 8.. ... on; .... a: .2 m: a. 3.. $.« :0 31¢ a. .a. a An .u A m 38V 3... 3.: 3.: a: a... 2.. n: 3,: 3.. 2. SA a... E 2.: 3.: a: sis-«Ha .A. .uAn .. A“ ...A. 389 ...... 3.: ...: 3n 2.: 3.. a. 2.: a... 3. 3a 3.. a. 2.: 2.: a: 33.35 6. .: .m m A: .. A. i A: 38v 3... a... 3.: 3n 3.: 3.: .... an... ...: 2m 2.: 2.: 3 5.: 3.: .3 J... #3:: .3 m a A. .u A. ..A: 321v 8.2 3.: .3... a: ...: :A: «3 3.: 3.: 2m 3.: ...: B 9.: 8.: no .58 33:: .3 n . Am .. Am ...Ax 38v .... 2...: 3;: a: 2.3: 3.3: 2. 1.3.: 2.2: n: can: 2;: 3 8...: 2.3: .3 ... . Am _. A. .m A: ..Az 38V .12. ...... 3.: non. a... an... s: ...: 3.2 n: 3.: 2.: 3 2.3 8.3 a... .3 w I Am .n h. .uAm . A: 38v 2.2 3.: 2.: a: 3.3 2.3 s: a... 2.: 2. :5“ 3.2 S ...? 2.3 no .8. .2 W nAm .. A. .. Am 389 3.: 3.5 1.: no. ...: :5 a; a... an... n: ...: :4. 8 as... R... 23 R5. ... u. n Am .- A. .u hm ..h: «Saw 3.2 3.3 3.3 a: 2.2 3.3 3» 2.3 9.3 nun 3.3 3.: 8 2.3 2.3 n2 1:... .3 m m A. .u A. .. A: 33V 2.: ...2 :12 a: B... a... a: a... 5.: 2n .9... ...: 3 3.2 :5. .3 Is. a m a A. .u A . ... A“ ... A: 38v 3.: 2.: no... 2. 3.3 2.... 3a 2;: 2.: 2. 2.2 1.9 8 E6. :6. .3 on...“ u wA. .u A. .. C. 38v 3.: =6: :62 a: n2: «1:: 3. ......2 2;: n: 3:: :éz S 2.”: 3:: n3 1:... h . Am .u A. ..Am .. A: 38v 2.: 2.... 3.3 a: 2.: :i: a: 5.: 8.: a: 3.: 3.: S .1: 9.: 3a .521 ... m :XXiI. .... 3.. 3.3 2.... can 3.: at: 2. 3.: ...: Sn 3.: 2.: an S... 3.? n2 .... n m n An .. Au .uA m 389 as 3.2 2.2 no. ...? 2.: 3. 3.5 3... 2n :5 on... 3 3.2 2.: n2 25. . w u A— .. A» .8. 3.: ...... :5 3. a... 3.: 3a :5 an... 2. 3.2 8.3 8 ...: 5.: n3 1:... a m n A. .u A n 389 S... 3.: 3.: a: 3.: ...: 2a 2.2 :3. an ...: 8.3 a. 3.2 3.: «no lo. u x m A: .u «a .. An 320 8.: 8.2 3.3 a: 3.2 2.: 3o ...: 3.2 n: 2.2 «Eon a 2.2 2.: a: clan .. 3.V a M uJfl 5.2 n u .3 is. n u :l .5: z u .2 5!. .. a. :3 is. _. Zn... :5: .133. B...“ m z u is. n - 55E . . :1:- m . an n . o3 3 53a: .8133 msflmm use .moom mm. .Nmmm 2: non .mSImma. 9:. son mpHSmofi 9..de oHQHpHSE can women m «9.39: nmoNflm oaQEmmll.m mqmflb . i . Al. ..l. C\ ] (x 1 .0 .7. mi fly n1. u ”D ..L h _ .5 30 ax n ..i n s 0 e ..l “v. xb WM .411. U. a: O .L. n ,. .n; A» n '1. «A n AFv A.» ~ A». . l U F3. ...... .1: Cr. V. r u. . . rl“ fl. L. at .3. ‘ A v .U . . .5. w . :l y... .. . . . k, at. n. n AV ,4 «T. u. a rd r. L. .. I a . 2,. n» a . n . Ya » L a» x . xx» . . L \\\ .x 7l handicapping conditions. What would be overlooked in the ordinary analysis and what is illuminated by the facet approach is that these more positive attitudes are re— flected only in the more abstract "stereotypic" and ”normative" levels 1 and 2 and that the Belize group actually scored significantly more poorly on the more personal ”hypothetical personal behavior" and "actual personal behavior” levels # and 6 of the ABS—MR than did the BER group. In general, it may be stated that the results cited in this section provide support for the content and con— current validity of the ABS—MR as well as for the utility and fruitfulness of the facet approach to attitude scale construction. Reliability It would appear that a legitimate method for asses— sing the reliability of the ABS—MR scale would be through a test—retest operation on the same sample which would, when correlated, produce a correlation of temporal sta— bility. Even though the resulting correlation coeffi— cient might be spuriously high because of item recall, this would nevertheless seem to be a viable procedure since it is generally believed that attitudes are rela— tively permanent (Duijker, 1955). Because of various logistical problems involved in re—assembling the large Sample groups, however, it was not possible to carry out this procedure on the ABS—MR. sca.‘ the com; and tern __.________T 72 Another procedure for obtaining an estimate of scale reliability which seems appropriate would be through the split-half method whereby the scale is split into two comparable halves and the scores obtained are correlated and corrected by the Spearman—Brown formula. This pro— cedure would provide a measure of equivalence, or ade— quacy of item sampling, across all levels of the ABS—MR. A third seemingly apprOpriate method of estimating reliability would be through obtaining a measure of in— ternal consistency for each individual scale level by computing a Kuder—Richardson type reliability coefficient for each scale level. In actuality, this was the pro— cedure used to estimate the reliability of the ABS—MR. Hoyt (1966) has described a formula for estimating test reliability based on analysis of variance which gives precisely the same result as formula (20) described by Kuder and Richardson (1937). A variation of Hoyt's formula, allowing for a difference between the method of scoring the ABS—MR and the scoring method used in the Hoyt and Kuder and Richardson data, was programmed into the MSU computer and was used to estimate the reliability of the ABS-MR for the three standardization sample groups on each scale level as well as the total scores on this instrument. Table 4 shows the reliability estimates ob— tained in this manner for each of the samples. TAB] mate are L were behax this behav 73 TABLE u.——Hoyt reliability coefficients for ABS-MR standardization groups. ABS-MR Scale Level Reliability Coefficients Group 1 2 3 u 5 6 Total 88 M.S.U. SER Students .74 .82 .69 .79 .85 .78 .87 633 M.S.U. ED 200 Students .73 .83 .69 .79 .71 .67 .89 523 Belize Teachers .63 .75 .60 .79 .76 .76 .86 Shaw and Wright (1967) have reported reliability esti— mates on a large number of various types of attitude scales and the figures shown in Table u for the ABS-MR compare very favorably with the majority of those reported in their text; thus, the reliability of the ABS—MR would certainly seem adequate for group research. In fact, the reliabili- ties shown for the ABS-MR total scores in Table A compare quite favorably to those of many tests used for individual diagnosis, evaluation, and selection described by Anastasi (1961). It is interesting to note that the figures in Table 4 are uniformly lowest on level 3. Apparently the subjects were less sure about how others should (i.e., right—wrong behavior) behave toward the retarded, which is tapped on this level, than they were about how they themselves would behave, which is measured on levels U-6. Comb and ence resp not were resp tive neut mp 1“01‘ I seem; devei "hicl Van; in Al 74 Comblniny Content and intensity All of the data discussed in this chapter in refer- ence to the standardization study has referred to subject responses to the content of each attitude item and does not have reference to the intensity with which these items were responded to. Thus, a weakly felt negative attitude response was given the same weight as a strongly felt nega— tive response and, accordingly, strongly and weakly felt neutral responses and strongly and weakly felt positive responses were weighted equally. As was indicated in the section of this chapter dealing with intensity, Guttman and Foa (1951) have sug— gested that it is "quite inadvisable" to ignore attitude intensity in comparing groups. Since the ABS—MR already contained an intensity statement following each content item on each scale level, it was decided that the content and intensity responses should be combined into one score for each item in the present research to eliminate the seemingly inappropriate response weights described above. Accordingly, a rationale and scoring procedure was developed for combining content and intensity responses which differentially weights each combination of these two variables for every item. This procedure is fully described in Appendix B. In practical terms, the procedure has the effect of increasing the range of possible scores for each item from 1—3 (negative to positive) to 1-9 (strongly f 'I“--, N'w;;.l, l,:_ cre rel sho bet In‘s that pe0p] \ \ ”high 1 , .31. 1.. 75 negative to strongly positive). Theoretically, the in— crease in range of scores should, if anything, enhance the reliability of each item (Anastasi, 1961), which in turn should further clarify group differences and relationships between the predictor variables and the ABS—MR. 3 Instrument Limitations | For a number of reasons, among which may be counted ‘ the press of temporal commitments in several nations as well as the experimental nature of the task involved and the newness of the technique, which precluded falling back on established research for guidance, several shortcomings in the ABS—MR scale are readily apparent. Among these shortcomings or limitations may be mentioned the following: failing to control for (a) response sets, (b) social desir— ability, (c) homogeneous disjoint struction or item content on all levels, (d) alternative permutations of the facet elements, and (e) the effect of the order of scale adminis— tration on correlation matrices. One of the first and yet unresolved problems in the development of the ABS-MR scale revoled around the assign- ment of response weights. The question essentially involved was: which is the "best" or most favorable response——to say that the mentally retarded are equal to or superior to other people in some positive manner? Or, stated differently, which is the "best" attitude——the most realistic one or the one denoting the most positive evaluation without necessarily being final ative the n inner than "favo nespo: and re unfavc assign the mo “We to on and lo the da here st 1east 1 a “eutl the no: hemes Ms) C ,1 ,,P 76 being grounded in reality considerations? It was decided finally to weight the items on a negative to positive eval— ative dimension without concern for which is necessarily the most "realistic" response since there seemed to be more inherent difficulty in defining "reality" in this regard than in defining "positive evaluations." Thus, the most "favorable" response is not always the most "realistic" response. It was decided that three alternatives would gener— ally be presented to each question, one alternative sug- gesting a positive evaluation, one a negative evaluation, and the third a neutral position. Ideally, the questions and responses would have been worded so that the favorable, unfavorable, and neutral responses would have been randomly assigned to the three numbered alternatives. Thus ideally, the most favorable response on one question would be alter— native 1, while on another it would be alternative 3, and so on in a random fashion. Because of the press of time and logistical problems in cross-cultural organization of the data and computer programming, however, the responses were set up so that alternative 1 always represented the least favorable response, alternative 2 always represented a neutral position, while alternative 3 always constituted the most positive response. In such a schema there exists, needless to say, a real danger of error due to response sets, or the tendency of some of the subjects to answer all of th conte to th encin contet tion ( Pegan StPuct “rum leV91: ”file: the SE Hamepg an in: cmiter 1eVels “t n l of the questions in a similar fashion independent of the content of the particular item. Attitude scales of this type are also susceptible to the analagous pressure of social desirability influ— encing various responses. This problem has been discussed in the section on validity and, as suggested in that sec~ tion, the only way out of this dilemma with an instrument of this type appears to be through guaranteeing the sub— jects complete anonymity. Whether or not this procedure represents an adequate solution to the problem, however, remains a moot question. It was noted too in the section on the development of the ABS-MR scale that the disjoint struction or item content was not as well controlled as the conjoint struc— tion or attitude level. This was particularly true with regard to level 5 which, as was previously noted, was not structured on the disjoint dimension at all. Disjoint struction was also relatively uncontrolled on the other levels of the ABS—MR, which is to say that the various sub- scales or levels include items of different content so that the same content does not necessarily appear on all levels. Hamersma (1969), in a study of racial attitudes, employed an instrument based on Guttman facet theory in which the content of each attitude item is repeated across all six levels or sub—scales, with the item being altered only to fit the structure (conjoint struction) of the different 78 levels. In this manner, the item content was held con— stant so that the attitude structure was more easily as— sessed than in the present research. It was also previously noted that multiplicaton of the two elements in each of the five conjoint struction facets yielded a possible 32 combinations or permutations of elements. The six level permutations of the ABS—MR scale were selected primarily through subjective judgment. Maierle (1969) has extended research in this area and found that of the 32 permutations which might be formed, only 12 were semantically consistent. Maierle found that varying numbers of these permutations belong to different levels; that is, if a level is defined by the number of strong or weak elements found in the attitude items of that level, then one permutation exists on level 1 of the ABS—MR, three on level 2, four on level 3, two on level A, and one per— mutation each on levels 5 and 6. The violations of sim— plex orderings previously noted (Table 2) in the standard— ization data may have been due in part to the fact that four permutations are possible on level 3, the level on which most of the violations of simplex ordering have been found up to now. Another question related to simplex ordering which has been unanswered until Maierle's (1969) research has to do with the effect of the order of scale level administra— tion upon the resulting correlation matrix. In the present 79 study, as in all of the previous research in this area, all of the data has been obtained from administration of various level member sub—tests in the same order, i.e., all items of level 1 have been presented first, all items of level 2 presented second, and so forth. Maierle (1969) randomly varied the order of scale level presentation of a new Guttman facet type attitude scale to a large group of subjects and found that a better simplex approximation was obtained when correlations were plotted according to theo— retical relationships than according to order of administra— tion, thus lending further support to the theoretical as- sumptions involved. Independent Variables The instrument labeled Personal Questionnaire: MR (Appendix A) was designed to operationalize a number of independent variables suggested by the review of the liter— ature to be determinants of attitudes toward mentally re— tarded persons. Many of the items in this questionnaire were used in the international study of attitudes toward physically disabled persons conducted by Jordan (1968) and all revisions in these items were made by that author. Demographic Variables A total of seven demographic items were included in the questionnaire which from a theoretical standpoint might correlate with, or predict, the criterion: sex, item 81; IIIIIIIIIT______________—____________________i 80 age, item 82; amount of education, item 87; work experi— ence in education, item 83; marital status, item 84; re— ligious preference, item 85; and perceived importance of and adherence to religion, items 86 and 96. 3 Change Orientation i This set of six questions was adapted by Felty (1965) from Programa Interamericano de Informacion Popular in Costa Rica to measure attitudes toward change in the follow— ing areas: self change, items 88 and 97; child—rearing practices, item 89; birth control, item 90; automation, item 91; and political leadership change, item 92. Educational Aid and Planning Items were included in the questionnaire to measure opinions regarding local government aid to education (item 93), federal aid to education (item 94), as well as to who should have responsibility for educational planning (item 95). Contact with Handicapped Persons Questions 98 through 106 were designed to operation— alize variables involved in personal contact between the respondents and handicapped persons. The items included are conceptually distinct. Item 98 reports the category of handicap with which the respondent has had the most experience; item 99 reports the kind of relationship FIIIIIIII:___________—_________________——_7 81 experienced; item 100 the frequency of contact; item 101 the ease with which the contact might have been avoided; items 102 and 103 the extent to which the respondent gained materially by the contact; while item 10A indicates the availability of alternatives to working with the handicapped. Items 105 and 106 were designed to measure respectively (a) the amount of contact, and (b) the amount of enjoyment ex— perienced in contact with mentally retarded persons only. Efficacy Attitude items 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, and 123, which appear in the questionnaire (Appendix A) under the heading "Life Situations," were adapted from a fully evolved Guttman Scale reported by Wolf (1967). Mea- sures of intensity, or answer "certainty," i.e., items 108, 7 110, 112, 111;, 116, 118, 120, 122, and 12h, were added to the original items evolved by Wolf. In addition, four levels of intensity of aggreement—disagreement with the items replace the original "agree-disagree" dichotomy used by Wolf. This scale was designed to measure attitudes toward man and his environment and attempts to determine the re— Spondent’s view of this relationship. The continuum underlying this scale ranged from a view that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some measure of ad— justment to forces outside of himself, to a View that man could gain complete mastery of his phy— sical and social environment and use it for his own purpose (Wolf, 1967, p. 113). 82 This variable has been termed "efficacy" since the scale purports to measure attitudes toward man's effectiveness in the face of his natural environment. Knowledge About Mental Retardation A sixteen item knowledge scale on mental retardation, .items 125 through lNO, was extracted from the larger General Information Inventory of Haring, Stern, and Cruick- shank (1958) by Jordan (1969). These sixteen items were selected because they were specifically designed to measure the amount of factual knowledge possessed by the respondent regarding various aspects of mental retardation. Results obtained on this scale for the MSU graduate students in special education-rehabilitation and the edu— cation sophomores described in the ABS—MR standardization section were submitted to the MSU item analysis computer program (Office of Evaluation Services, 1965). The results of this analysis indicated that seven of the items in this -scale discriminated fairly well between the upper and lower 27% of each group on total scores and these items also had indexes of difficulty ranging from A2 to 71 (an index of difficulty range of 20 to 80 with an average of 50 to 60 is considered desirable). The composite score on these seven items (items 126, 127, 128, 130, 134, 139, and 190) constituted the knowledge-about-mental—retardation variable in the present research. 83 German Revisions A total of eleven items in the ABS-MR scale were altered slightly in the translation into German in an attempt to attain concept equivalence. These alterations, along with several others in the questionnaire section of the instrument, are shown in the code book special instruc— tions for Germany found in Appendix C. Two of the items used in the translation of the items constituting the knowledge—about—mental—retardation variable (items 126 to 130 in the questionnaire section) had to be reworded somewhat to conform to the German educational sys— tem but the meanings and correct response in both cases re— mained unchanged. On a third item (140), however, it was decided that the correct response to a question dealing with the public reaction to mental retardation should be altered from the response of "somewhat understanding but not com— pletely accepting," used in the American version, to "ex- press feelings of acceptance but really feel rejecting" to conform to the specific German situation. It will also be noted in the special instructions (Appendix C) that three questions were added to the end of the German translation of the instrument which do not appear in the original English version. One question (number 191 in the Questionnaire section) was added to determine the level of mental retardation (mild, moderate, or severe) with which the respondent was most familiar since it was 84 felt that this might have some effect on his attitude toward the problem. A second question (142 on the ques— tionnaire) was added specifically to determine whether the length of time a child had been enrolled in a special school for the moderately retarded had any effect on the parent of that child's attitude toward mental retardation. The third question (143 on the questionnaire) was designed to camouflage the intent of the second question since it dealt with the length of time a child may have been en— rolled in a special school for the mildly retarded when in reality no parents whose children were in this category were purposely tested. It was felt that the level of vo- cabulary necessary to understand and complete the instru— ment would be beyond the capacity of the latter group of parents since, as was noted in Chapter 11, they tend to emanate from the lowest socio—economic class in Germany; therefore, a sample group of these parents was not in— cluded in the present study. stu grc Acc nod ent for e hou hip Sam the \ CHAPTER IV DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The purpose of the comprehensive international study1 is to investigate the attitudes of designated groups in different nations toward the mentally retarded. Accordingly, nations were chosen at varying levels of modernization, economic development, and cultural ori- entation. The design of the international study, there— fore, called for samples from the same groups in dif- ferent nations. Analysis procedures were chosen which would permit testing the relationships specified in the hypotheses. Sample The original proposal for this study called for a sample from the Federal Republic of Germany composed of the following four groups: (a) Approximately 100 Parents of Mentally Retarded Children. (b) Approximately 100 Special Education Teachers of Mentally Retarded Children. (0) Approximately 100 Regular School Teachers. (d) Approximately 50-100 Employers or Manager— Executives. 1See Chapter I. 85 h h tht Thl hit 061 Sam Dre 86 The sample actually obtained very closely approximated the above originally desired figures and consisted of the following groups:2 (a) 147 Parents of Moderately Retarded Children.—_ These parents all had some connection with the Max— Wittmann-Schule in Dortmund. This school and training center provides services for 355 of the approximately 500 eligible moderately retarded or Geistigbehinderte in the Dortmund area in a program ranging from nursery school activities for 3—5 year olds to a sheltered work- shop for those over 21 who are unable to compete in com— petitive employment (Vormfelde, 1969). Permission was obtained from the director of the school, Frau Elisabeth Vormfelde, to administer the scale and questionnaire at one of the regularly held parents' assemblies. Accord— ingly, the instrument was administered to a total of 137 parents at one such assembly and usable data was ob— tained from 125 of this group. It is not known to what extent this group is representative of all parents of children enrolled in this school although the director stated most parents show up at these assemblies from time to time in a random fashion. At that time (Fall and Winter, 1968) an additional 55 children were on the waiting list for admittance to 2The source for much of the description of the sample groups was Dr. Hartmut Horn whose role in the present study was fully described in Chapter II. 87 the Max-Wittman—Schule. The parents of these 55 children were then surveyed by mail and 22 questionnaires of the original 55 sent out were returned in usable condition, representing a rather low net return rate of 40%. This low return rate could very well bias any findings ob— tained for this group. (b) 148 Special Education Teachers of the Mildly Mentally Retarded.--This large group of teachers actually consisted of three separate sub-groups. The first sub- group was made up of 51 fully certified special education teachers of the mildly retarded (Lernbehinderte) in the Dortmund area. Approximately 85% of all such teachers in the Dortmund area belong to an organization called the Deutscher Sonderschullehrerverband (German Special Education Teachers Association) which publishes an in— fluential journal, Zeitschrift fuer Heilpaedagogik (Journal of Special Education), and exerts considerable legislative pressure. Most (38) of this group were given the instrument at one of their regular meetings, while the remainder (13) were given a free hour during the regular school day to respond to the scale by their principals who had been present at the meeting. These teachers had all had from 2-40 years teaching experience in general and at least one year of experience in teaching the retarded. the sub tea hat 9D; 88 The second sub—group consisted of 63 fully certi- fied regular school teachers (Volkschullehrer), with a minimum of two years experience, who were enrolled in a program of study in the department of special education in the Ruhr College of Education (Paedagogische Hochschule Ruhr) in Dortmund which would lead to certification in the special education of the mildly retarded. At least three months of experience teaching the mildly retarded is a pre— requisite for admittance to this program. The third sub-group of 34 consisted of students in the same program of study who were different from the second sub-group only in that they had less than the two years teaching experience necessary for the certification exami~ nation. In all other respects they were similar to the second sub—group described above. Both of these groups completed the scale and questionnaire during their class- room time in the college. It is felt that this overall group provides an ade- quate and representative sample of teachers of the mildly retarded in the Dortmund area. (0) 74 Regular Elementary School Teachers (Volk- schullehrer).—-One segment of this group consisted of 22 fully certified (more than two years experience) elemen— tary school teachers. For the most part they were prin— cipals (Volkschulrektoren) with many years experience, and all were voluntarily attending a course in vocational 89 guidance and counseling in the department of special edu— cation of the Ruhr College of Education in Dortmund. Simi— larly to the last two sub—groups described, this group was tested as part of the regular classroom procedure in the college. The other segment of this group was made up of 52 probationary regular elementary school teachers in the Dortmund area. This group had all completed their neces— sary college coursework and all were employed full time in Volkschulen. All, however, lacked the two years teaching experience necessary to take the certification examination. As part of their continuing in-service training, all teach— ers in this category are required to participate in monthly seminars and the sample was obtained by administering the instrument to all such participants in two separate seminars. Because of the apparent special interest area of the former group on the one hand, and because of the rela— tive lack of experience of the latter group on the other, it is felt that findings obtained for the overall group can be generalized only with caution to Volkschule teachers in the Dortmund area in general. (d) 84 Manager—Executives.—-Approximately half of this group (38) had completed a course of study roughly equivalent to an American B.A. in Business Administration, while the other half (46) were at the final stage of their 90 studies. The training consisted of a three year correspon— dence course in business, highlighted by two one—week mandatory seminars each year, offered by the Deutsche Angestellten Akademie (German Employees Academy) which is supported by the second largest organization of employees in Germany, i.e., the Deutsche Angestellten Gewerkschaft (Union of German Employees). This course of training rep- resents one of the most demanding correspondence courses in Germany and if successfully completed entitles the graduate to take a state examination leading to the title of Betriebswirt (Industrial Manager). Students enrolled in the D.A.A. course are generally white collar office workers in industry and commerce. Upon completion of their studies and upon meeting the certification require- ments they are generally promoted to middle management supervisory positions in many different areas of commerce and industry. The training is voluntary and the students are generally upward striving and above average in intel— ligence. Most come from the lower middle class while many of the remainder generally have been displaced from their hereditary role in life for one reason or another, e.g., many of these students were refugees from East Germany. All subjects in this sample were surveyed by mail. One group consisted of Summer, 1968 graduates while the second consisted of Summer, 1969 graduates. Of the 53 surveyed in the first group, 38 (72%) returned completed FIIIIIIIIIII__—7e 91 instruments, while 46 of the 52 surveyed (88%) in the second group did likewise. The overall return rate of exactly 80% was considered sufficient to assure that this group was adequately represented. To what extent this group may or may not be typical of German manager— executives in general is unknown however, and any findings obtained for this group would not necessarily be valid beyond the confines of D.A.A. graduates. (e) 71 Parents of Normal Children.—-A fifth sample group of subjects was obtained which had not been antici— pated in the original proposal. This group consisted of parents of normal children who were enrolled in one of the first four grades of a Dortmund elementary school who were called together for a parents' assembly. Altogether, about 140 parents were invited to this assembly and about 100 showed up. Eight or nine parents refused to take the test for one reason or another and, of the 91 who did, 20 were apparently unable to understand the directions well enough to complete the instrument correctly, resulting in 71 usable responses. Since this figure represents ap— proximately 50% of those parents originally invited to the assembly, it is felt that any results obtained for this group cannot be safely generalized to parents of normal children in the Dortmund area with any high degree of confidence. 92 All in all, however, it is felt that the obtained samples were quite good, generally representative, and adequate for a study of this type. Major Research Hypotheses The variables employed in this study were inter— correlated to enable the examination of relationships for both content and intensity of the criterion ABS—MR scale (across each of the six levels as well as the total score) with 29 independent variables. This procedure facilitated the testing of the major research hypotheses. Original Hypotheses The original hypotheses were derived from Jordan's (1968) previous research into the attitudes of various groups in eleven nations toward the physically handicapped and toward education in general. Chapters I and II indi— cated that four classes of variables seemed to be related to attitudes: (a) demographic factors, (b) value orienta— ‘ tion, (0) contact factors, and (d) the knowledge factor. 1 Jordan sought to test a number of hypotheses evolving from ‘ these four classes of variables and based on previous re— search as well as theoretical considerations. Although a 3 number of Jordan's hypotheses were supported, he felt that the results were not as clear cut as they should have been 1 .— because of instrumentation problems, i-e-: Jordan S cri terion instruments seemed to be tapping primarily the .4 93 stereotypic level of what later appeared to be a six level attitude universe (Jordan, 1968). The following hypotheses (with the exception of H:15 which stems directly from facet theory) therefore represent reformulations of findings and trends evident in the previous eleven nation study applied to a differ— ent referent and employing an attitude scale tapping a six level attitude universe. They were formulated in an effort to further explicate the relationship between at- titudes and the four classes of predictor variables and will be tested in several countries as part of the inter— national project described in Chapter I. Relating Attitudes and Efficacy H—l: Persons who score high in efficacy will score high in posi ive atti udes toward the mentally retarded. €¢~ €4C/7 rtev7 WY, _ Relating Attitudes and Knowledge H-2: Persons who score high in knowledge about mental retardation will score high in positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Relating Attitudes W H-3: The more frequent the contact with mentally retarded persons the higher will be the intensity scores on the ABS-MR, regardless of the direction (positiveness 0P negativeness) of attitude. lIIIIIIIIIIIII:—————————————————————————————————————”*——‘—==’—————_““”_””" 94 H—4: The more frequent the contact with other disability groups the higher will be the intensity scores on the ABS—MR regardless of the direction of attitude. H—5: High frequency of contact with mentally re- ' tarded persons will be associated with favorable atti— tudes toward the mentally retarded if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) ease of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjoyment of the contact. Relating Attitudes and Religiosity .. H-6: Persons who score high on stated importance of religion will score 123 on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. ,_H—7: Persons who score hlgp on stated adherence to religion will score £93 on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables He8: Amount of education will be positively re- lated to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. H—9: ggg will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. H-lO: megp will socre higher on positive atti— tudes toward the mentally retarded than will men. 95 Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation H-ll: Persons who score high on change orientation will score high on positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Relating Attitudes to Opinions on Educational Aid and Planning H-l2: Agreement with government aid to education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. H-l3: Agreement with centralized government planning of education will be positively related to favorable atti- tudes toward the mentally retarded. RelatingiAttitudes and Group Membership H—l4: The groups will assume the following order with respect to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded: Teachers of the Mentally Retarded>Parents of the Mentally Retarded>Regular Teachers>Manager—Executives. Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality H-15: The ABS-MR scale levels or attitude sub- universes will form a Guttman Simplex for each of the German groups. II.IIIIIIIIIIII:—___________________________—_____________—_—_—'fi7 96 'Additional Hypotheses Certain special characteristics of the German sample and the addition of two questions at the end of the instru— ment made possible the testing of several additional hy- potheses not anticipated at the time of the original hy— pothesis formulation. The inclusion of a group of parents of normal children was not called for in the original pro— posal nor was it anticipated that parents of retarded children could be categorized according to whether or not their child was in a special school, and, if so, for how long a period. In addition, it was not known originally that both regular and special education teachers would fall into clearly discernible groups based on years of teaching experience. Finally, the relationship between the type or level of mental retardation with which the subject was nmst familiar and his attitude toward the problem became testable because of the nature of the sample. The additional hypotheses were based on the following reasoning: (a) Since parents of normal children would seem to have lesser investment in the problems of the retarded than mothers of the retarded and since the former mothers were probably less well educated than the other German groups, it was assumed that their attitudes would be less favorable than those of any other group. 97 (b) Since education for the moderately retarded is a relatively recent innovation in Germany where these children were previously largely shunned and rejected, it was assumed that the longer a child had been attending a special school for the moderately retarded the more favor— able would be the attitude of his or her parent toward men— tal retardation. (c) Proctor's (1967) research in Michigan demon— strated a positive correlation between attitudes toward the physically handicapped and years of teaching experience and it was assumed that this finding would generalize to the German teacher samples and their attitudes toward mental retardation. (d) Because of the traditional concern in Germany with the education and integration into the larger society of the mildly retarded, as opposed to the more recent pro— grams for the moderately retarded, and because of the gen— erally higher level of social functioning of the former group, it was anticipated that those most familiar with and knowledgeable about the mildly retarded would evidence more favorable attitudes toward mental retardation in general than those most familiar with the moderately or severely retarded. Relating Attitudes and Additional Group Variables H-l6: Parents of normal children will have lEEé posi- tive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than any other group. V 98 H-17: Parents of moderately retarded children at— tending a special school will have more positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will parents of moder- ately retarded children awaiting admittance to a special school. H-18: There will be a positive relationship between the length of time a moderately retarded child has been attending a special school and the favorableness of his parent's attitude toward mental retardation. H—l9: Experienced special education teachers of the mildly retarded will have more positive attitudes toward mental retardation than will inexperienced special education teachers of the mildly retarded. H-20: Experienced regular teachers will have more positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will inexperienced regular teachers. Relating Attitudes and Level of Retardation H-21: Persons most familiar with the mildly men— tally retarded will have more positive attitudes toward mental retardation in general than will persons most familiar with the moderately and/or severely mentally retarded. Analysis Procedures The Control Data Corporation Computers (CDC 3600 and 6500) at Michigan State University were used to analyze the any For eat in CO! 99 the data which will also become an integral part of the larger comprehensive study described in Chapter I. Descriptive Statistics Two Frequency Column Count programs (Clark, 1964) designated as FCC—I and FCC-II were used to compile the frequency distribution for every item on the instrument. This procedure was found to be useful as a final precaution to assure that the data fed into the computer for analysis was accurate. Correlational Statistics In the CDC MD—STAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966) a great amount of data can be employed in one analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of sub-groups or partitionings of the data. For each specified group, e.g., total, male, female, etc., a number of statistics can be requested. Those used for each partitioning in this research were means and stan— dard deviations for each variable and the matrix of simple correlations between all variables. Partial and multiple correlations are also outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC program at MSU (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966a). One advan- tage to 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 a C r 1 a h o n e h h r n e 1 a n rib. \ \ Ut. 5 Wu "V l. D d A. t C ATV HI. LIV 1V e p U“ f l Hut S u LIV q lOO simultaneously. Often when a series of Pearsonian product— moment Eli are computed between a criterion and a set of variables considered to be predictors of the criterion it is possible to obtain spuriously based conclusions because predictor variables are themselves interrelated rather than directly predictive of the criterion. In a partial corre- lation solution to the problem these relationships among the predictor variables are considered in computing the correlation of each variable with the criterion, i.e., the effects of all but one variable are held constant. The use of multiple regression analysis has been recommended by Ward (1962) because it "not only reduces the dangers in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before consid- ered 'researchable’ (p. 206)." The multiple correlation program yields the following statistics: (a) the beta (weights of all predictor variables, (b) a test of signi— ficance for each beta weight, and (c) the partial corre— lations between each predictor and the criterion. Analysis of Variance Statistics The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel & Rafter, 1966B) was used to calculate the one—way analysis of variance statis— tics. This program is designed to handle unequal fre— quencies occurring in the various categories. 101 A two-way analysis of variance design for unequal Eli was used to analyze group—sex interaction (Ruble, Paulson & Rafter, 1966). Since the samples were not equal in size or sex ratio within groups, all E tests were based on coefficients represented by the adjusted means. The coefficients on which the adjusted means are based equal— izes or accounts for the variance in the size of the group samples. 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 3 statistic; results are the same for two means using either test (Edwards, 1965). While a significant overall 3 leads to rejection of the statistical hypothesis, it is not known whether every mean is significantly different from every other mean when three or more means are inVOlved. Several multiple means tests have been proposed for determining the differences between treatment means (Winer, 1962). In this research the 3 test for group comparisons is the usual one with the E test used to test for differences between "adjusted means" or ”pairs of groups" equal to a two tailed 3 test while also fully accounting for the other experimental factor. This procedure for testing for significance among multiple means is approximately equal to Duncan's Multiple Means Test (Edwards, 1965; Kramer, 1956) up to and including three treatment means. The procedure is somewhat more 102 liberal than Duncan's when more than three means are included, thus increasing the likelihood of Type 1 error. The procedure also does not account for non—independence among the pair-of—treatment means. Simplex Approximation Test Kaiser (1962) has suggested a procedure for testing a simplex approximation. Kaiser's approach may be seen as performing two functions: (a) the "sorting" and re— arranging of all possible arrangements of adjacent pairs of correlation coefficients so as to generate the best empirically possible simplex approximation, and (b) the assignment of a descriptive statistic, g3, to the original and re—arranged matrices. The index Q3 is a descriptive one, with a range of 0.00 to 1.00. A computer program was developed at MSU which (a) re-ordered the obtained level member correlations of each ABS—MR matrix by Kaiser's procedure to generate the "best" empirically possible simplex approximation, and (b) cal— culated the g3 for both the obtained and the empirically best ordering of each matrix. At the time the present research was completed an appropriate likelihood ratio for measuring goodness of fit was not available. Mukherjee (1966) has suggested a method which appears appropriate for matrices of equally Spaced correlations but neither the facet theory as 103 originally postulated by Guttman (1959) nor the data ob— tained to date indicates that the matrices have equally spaced entries. Table 5 shows the matrices which evolved from the standardization study discussed in Chapter III. The top section of Table 5 shows the actually obtained matrices previously illustrated in Table 2 for the MSU graduate students in special education—rehabilitation (SER), the MSU education sophomores (ED 200), and the Belize teachers, along with a value of Q3 for each matrix. The lower sec- tion of Table 5 shows the @312 for the same data as re— ordered by Kaiser's (1962) procedure. Examination of Table 5 indicates that the obtained matrices for the SER and ED 200 groups and the empirically "best" ordered matrices for these two groups were identical, with correspondingly identical Q3 values. For the Belize group, levels 5 and 6 are reversed in the obtained and best orderings but the increase in the 93 value seems minimal, i.e., from .858 to .859, as a result of this re—ordering. It will be noted that Kaiser's (1962) method of re- arranging the matrices leaves something to be desired in that it does not produce a perfect simplex Criterion by which to compare obtained matrices since only adjacent pairs of correlations were re—ordered. Re—ordering of ad— jacent pairs only means that all possible permutations of the data are not obtained. This.is made quite clear in w m M -- eH. mm. mHH ooh-mm“ m -- mm. mH. mo. so. He. e -- Hm. mH. sou-mo. oo. o _ -- mm. mi. 3.. m -- mm. eH. mac-HH.. m -- em. sets-H.110. m . l -- mm. mm. Hm“ e -- mm. Hm. mHl e -- we. we. OH. : meeHseez -- am. Hi m . -- Hm. mo. m -- em. H. m esters -- mm. m -- :2. m -- mm. m ems. u we -- H one. - me -- H see. n we -- H m m .H m m H m m e m m H o m z m m H -- eH. Wm. mH. OH. MH. e -- NW. mH. me. so. He. 0 -- Hm. mH. so. mo. 00. e -- Hm. mH. so. eH. m -- mm. OH. NH. eH. m -- em. we. MH. so. m -- mm..mm. Hm. e -- mm. Hm. mH. e -- we. NH. OH. : mttheez -- mm. HH. m -- Hm. mo. m -- em. eH. m HechHeo -- mm. m -- sq. m -- mm. m mmw. u mo -- H 02m. n m0 u-- H new. n ma -1- H assesses eNHHem mmm messagem com on em: mme meceesem mmm am: we .mosopm cowumNHosmocwpm .Hom mzlmm< Ho>oH me so moofispme Umsooso one Hmcflwruo (How w.mGII.m mqmfib 105 Table 6. It will be recalled that a perfect simplex ex— hibits the characteristics of (a) descending absolute corre— lation coefficients moving from top to bottom in the columns, and (b) ascending coefficients moving from left to right in the rows. Table 6 shows the "best" simplexes as re—ordered by Kaiser's procedure and the "best" sim— plexes obtained by re—ordering the same data intuitively. It will be noted that the intuitive re-ordering produces a perfect simplex in each case with no reversals of or— dering in any of the matrices whereas there are a total of 12 order reversals in the matrices re-ordered by Kaiser's procedure. In addition, at the time of research completion there was no test of significance available for QB. Hamersma (1969) accepted six order reversals as the maxi— mum a 6 x 6 matrix could contain and still be accepted as approximating a simplex. He found that by this criterion, a Q3 value of .60 was minimal and that preferably a value 0f .70 should be used to consider a matrix as approxi- mating a simplex. Significance Level The .05 level was accepted as constituting signifi— cance beyond chance level for both correlational and analy— sis of variance statistics in the present research. Set— ting the acceptable level of significance at this level results in some danger, of course, in research of this 106 :O. OO. MH. (V‘sLfl HO t (\l -- Om..eH. mH. HH. OO. O -- HN. eH. mO. so. HO. O -- HO. OH. mO. -- Hm. OH. mH. OH. m -- mm. OH. mH. mO. m -- em. mH. -- mm. Hm. OH. H -- Om. OH. mH. e -- em. -- Nm. mm. m -- :3. HO. m -- -- mm. m -- mm. m mHmwmw>mm popso 02 II: H mHmmLo>mm sopho oz III H dean>om LmULO O m O m m H O m s m m H e m s m -- OH. Hm. OH. man NH. O -- mm. OH. mO. :O. HO. O -- Hm. mH. man -- mm. mlqu q m -- mm. OH. H. S. m -- 19%|. -- mm. mm. HN. : -- mm. HO. OH. H -- we. -- mm. HHJ m -- Hmn man m -- -- mm. N -- as. N memHo>wm bongo m [-I H mHsmsm>om bongo : -- H mHMwsm>om noose m HO. HO. OH. NH. OO. OH. NH. Om. wsozomwe mNHHom mmm westezem oow Qu DMZ mmm meceesem mmm Om: Ow wcHsowho t>HeHOOcH wchooso HMoHLHQEm .md50bw coHumNHohmocwpm sow mmOHhomE mzlmm< etseeto sHt>HeHseeH One sHHeOHtHdsm-.O mamas FIIE::: 107 type, which employs large samples and numerous variables, of mistaking spurious yet statistically significant rela— tionships and differences for meaningful ones. However, at the present stage of theory development, it was felt that this danger was more than offset by the cues and guides which might be provided future researchers in this area through statistically significant differences and relationships which might otherwise be overlooked at a more exacting level of significance. (- CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA As indicated in Chapter IV, the data in the present research were analyzed by computer at Michigan State Uni— versity. Computer analysis not only enabled the testing of the major research hypotheses but, in addition, pro— vided cues in the data which may have implications for future research. ABS—MR Reliability It was pointed out in Chapter III that the ABS—MR content and intensity scores were combined into one score for each subject on each item according to the procedure described in Appendix B. In essence, this procedure had the effect of increasing the range of possible scores for each item from 1—3 (negative to positive) to 1-9 (strongly negative to strongly positive). It was felt that this in— creased range of scores would enhance the discriminative ability as well as the reliability of each item and hence the reliabilities of the various ABS—MR scale levels. To test the effectiveness of this procedure, reli— ability estimates were obtained on the ABS—MR for the German samples on content scores alone and on the combined content-intensity scores via the Hoyt (1966) method 108 109 described in Chapter III. In addition, the mean item—to— scale—level correlations were also computed for each sample for both content and combined content-intensity scores. The resulting reliability estimates and mean item— to—scale correlations are presented in Tables 7 and 8 respectively. Reference to Table 7 reveals that the ABS—MR reli— abilities were elevated as predicted as a result of the combining procedure——particularly levels 1, 2, 3, 5 and the ABS—MR total score reliabilities. The reliabilities also increased somewhat on levels 4 and 6 but not to the degree of the other ABS-MR levels. The figures presented in Table 8 show that the average item—to—scale level coefficients were also en— hanced as a result of combining content and intensity into one score and these results support the ability of this procedure to improve individual item reliability. The content reliability coefficients presented in Table 7 for the German groups are quite similar to those appearing in Table 4 in Chapter III for the ABS-MR stan— dardization groups with the exception of level 6. The mean of the content reliability coefficients on level 6 for the three standardization groups was .74 while the mean for the German samples on this level is only .65. The combining procedure also had the least effect on this level and it may be that the behavior interactions described in llO NO. OO. Os. OO. es. OO. NO. eecHnsoo boondommnsoz mo mpsohmm on om. OO. ms. OO. NO. ON. OO. pstpzoo mm. Hm. mm. . m . . . o: Eoo :O O as HO c He mo>Hpsooxmxnowmcmz aw Hm. mm. me. mm. mw. me. so. ocopcoo NO. NO. OO. Os. OO. ON. ON. OmcHesoo ooosmuom mo mucopwm OOH NO. HO. OO. OH. HO. Os. He. ecmecoo OO. Ne. OO. HO. OO. NO. ON. eeeHOEOO mhmcomoe ansmwm an OO. He. OO. HO. OO. OO. He. eceecoo NO. OO. Os. Os. HO. OH. OO. eecHesoo . newcomoB HmHooam mzH es. OO. Ne. Ne. em. me. OO. essence H38. O O O m N H meceHeHOeeoo OOHHHONHHOO HeseH eHeem odonw .wwHQEdw :mEbow sou mohOom OecheecH-eceecoe eecHesoe ecm ecmscoo sou mmHeHHHemHHes esom mz-mm<-.s mHmHp50oxMIhowmcmz Om Hm. OO. HO. Om. OO. OO. Oceecoo Hm. NO. OO. mm. OO. HO. OtcHeeOo UoULMpmm mo mucommm OOH HO. HO. OO. Nm. OO. Om. eeeecoo mm. mm. OO. OO. OO. OO. emcHOsoO mangowoa LMstom Ow mm. mm. mO. Om. OO. HO. psopcoo mm. OO. OO. Om. OO. Om. oocHosoo mnonommh HmHoon OOH mm. HO. mm. mm. HO. Om. pcopcoo O O O m N H @3090 .onmem COELoU how mCOHpmHohhoo son onowIQSWIOQIEmuH Oprcochlpcopzoo oocHnEoo one peopcoo mz-mmHesemxm-semocez OO OH. NH. OO. OO.- OH. NO. OO. emeteemm Oo essence OOH *ON. *ON. ON. OH. OO. OH. OH. meteoeee seHsOem.Os OH. NO. *HN. OO. OH. OO. OO.- esteeeee HOHOOOO OOH Hepoe O O O m N H dzosw wCOHPwHTLLOO H®>mfl mfidom mglmm< .moHdEmm smegma how mCOHpmHoshoo oHostm> OoOOHHmmIszmm<-.m mquB 115 Table 9 reveals no consistent and readily apparent pattern either in support of or in contradiction to the hypothesis for the various groups on the different levels of the ABS—MR. The small but statistically significant positive correlations for the total sample on levels 1 and 2 and the total ABS—MR are in direct support of the hypothesis, however, and it is concluded that Hypothesis 1 is partially, if weakly, supported by the data. Relating Attitudes and Knowledge H—2: Persons who score high in knowledge about men— tal retardation will score high in positive attitudes to- ward the mentally retarded. Hypothesis 2 was tested by correlating the ABS—MR with the Knowledge About Mental Retardation Scale described in Chapter IV. Table 10 presents these correlations for the various German samples and the total sample. Examination of Table 10 discloses that a number of correlations reach significance at the .05 level; all are negative correlations, however, and in direct contradic— tion to the hypothesis which predicts a positive relation— ship between attitudes and knowledge. Seven of the 11 positive correl‘tions appearing in Table 10 are found in the row for the special educatOrs, although none of these reach significance. In fact, with the exception of the Special teacher group, at least one significant negative ll6 ‘mO‘Vom * *3f 30.. *3{ mo.: mof 00.. 3?. 395mm H38. 3m *om.l mo. wa.| ma.n ma.| *zm.| *m:.| Umppmpomncoz mo mpcmpmm mm wo.l *wm.s mo.l HH.| NH.I ma. ma. mm>flp30meIgmwmswE ow *SE 5.. leaf 8.: 3.- mo.. mo? 323$ .8 3:33 93 *mm.t *Hm.| om.| Hm.| Hm.t mo. mo.l hymnomme awasmom ms mH. so. so. mo. no. HH. HH. mpmsowma Hafiomdm wza 138.. m m s m m H mocha wCOprHohgoo Ho>mq mamom mz|mm< .moHdEmm smegma pom macapmHmhgoo manmfism> mmcmfizocxnmznmmH950mxmlpowQOz mm Umbhwpmm ho wpcmhmm mma whocomwa amaswom :5 mgmnomoe Hwflomam 52H mo. *mH. *mH. *mm. *mH. *HN.I *m:.l UmEHDEOO 00. t2. *3. *3. *2. ET. $3.- 23:8 *mm. *Hm. *NH. *om. *za. mo.| *ma. zpflmsmch *wm. No. Hm. Hm. ma. NH. ma. UmCfiQEOO *wm. NO. ON. ON. Hm. NH. mfl. pcmpcoo NH. OH. oa. no.1 mo. HH. *zm. spflmcmch so. :0. ma. No.1 Ho. mo. :0. pmcHnEoo mo. mo. *mm. No.1 No.1 mo. Ho. pCmpcoo mo.l mo. 50.: mo. mo. mo.l NH.| zpflmcmch mo.i *om. OH.- mo.- mo.- no.1 mo.i em:HQEOO :0. *mm. mo. mo.1 00. mo.l oo. pcwpcoo 00.1 *NN. *mm.l OH.t OH.I No.l mo. zpflwcprH OH. :H. no. om. Md. *wm.1 mo. meHnEoo HH. ma. Ho. om. so. NH.I ma. psopcoo *mm. HH. Hm. NH. *wm. Hm. HH. huwmcmuCH wo.| Ho. mo. mo. OH.I Ho.l NH.I UmQfiQEoo 00.1 mo. mo.l mo.l OH.I Ho. wo.l qupCOO mo.1 00. Ho. oa.1 wo.u mo.| mo. mpfimcoqu proe m m a m m H manwflpm> mcoflpmfimphoo H®>mq mamom m2nmm< moosw .mmHmem smegma pom m20wmmm Uwphmpch zaampcme Sufi: [mammpoo zpflmach paw pcopcoo mefiQEoo pcw ansprOO weapcoo go pczoEm £pH3 mCOHp spflmccpca mzummHp506xmxhcmmcmz mm pcsoe< rlIlIlIllllllilllllllillllllllll pcoEHOHQM ccpbwpmm Mo mpcmnwm NMH pcdoE4 *Hm. *H:. *mm. NH. wH. Ho.l *mm. OH. :H. :0. ON. MH. *wm.I mo. occE>0ncm machomoe HmHSMcm :s pczoe<. HH. :H. *NH. No. NH. Ho.l mo.l pcoEHOncm mcmcomce HmHommm wzH mo.| Ho. mo. mo.| OH.: Ho.1 NH.| padoe< Hmooe o m a m m H mHancm> dsoso mcoHpchpaoo Hm>wH mHmom mznmm< Homecoo % .mmHQEww smegma po%.m50mhcm cmpnmpoh HHmpcwE cpfiz powpcoo mo pccEHOHQo new unseen new: mCOHumHmmHoo mzlmmHpSOmeIchmcmz mm oo. oo.: no. mo. 3. 3. mo. 823mm c0 35.38 :zH O B. MH.| HH.I :H.1 mo.| wo.1 wo. om.l mncnomma HmHsmcm :5 :H. *mH. HH. mo. mo. mo. zo.| mhccomce HmHoQO wzH m o m N H H p B m m : ozone mCOHuchhpoo Hm>oq meom mzlwm¢ .mmHQEmm :mEhow Hog mCOHuchHHoo QOHwHHoH mo cocmpLOQEH UppdpmtmznmmdeomeIHommcwz mm Ho. 00. No. mo. Ho.1 No.1 Ho.| pcpswpcm mo mucwpwm ::H mo.1 :0. HH.: mo. :0. :H.1 mH.1 mcccomma Hdewom :5 NH. *NN. HH. mo. mo. 00.1 mo.1 wsogomme HmHoQO m:H HmuoB o m : m N H Qsopo WCOHQNHOLLOO H®>®d wfimom mzlmm< .mcHdEmm smegma 90H mcoHpchHHoo COHwHHcc on cocccmnpm ccpmpmlmznmm<11.mH mqmHmeHcpHm cemm one pcxowno HHm QSOLw mHsp Ho mhcoEczH 'm00Vom * *0H.1 No.1 50.1 *HH. *:N. *0N.1 *0m.1 cHQEmm kuoe 0Hm :H.1 N0. 5H.1 00.1 00.1 mH.1 m0.1 oopsmpomncoz mo mpcccwm 00 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 Hmm>Hp306xM1hcmmswz mm mH.1 50. 50.1 :0.1 :0. 50.1 *5m.1 pcppdpom mo mpcmgwm m:H 00.1 50. m0.1 m0.1 0N.1 MH.1 H0.1 mnwnowoe Hmstom :5 HH. 00. HH.1 HH. *0N. m0.1 m0.1 mbozomme HwHomqm 5:H H0003 0 m : m N H macaw mQOHpmHthoo Hc>oq chom mzlmm< .mcHQEww cwEHcU Low mCOHpchLhoo SOHuwoon mo DCSOEM1mEImm<11.0H mHmHpSomeIhwwmcmz mm mH. 0H.1 No.1 *5H.1 *HN.1 :H.1 Umvomumm Mo musmgmm ::H *::. *H:. MH. *:N.1 0N. H0. mongoMcB HMstmm :5 0H. *NN. *HN. 00.1 m0. m0. :0.1 mgcnomce HmHome 0:H proe 0 m : m N H QSOLU mQOprchnoo Hc>mH mHmom mz1mm< .moHQEww smegma How mCOHpmHoHLOO omn1m21mm<11.5H mqmHusomxi1pcmmcms m0 voocmoom no qumHmo ::H *mm. *0N. *mm. *mm. MN. *wN. NN. *zm. mum. *wm. *HN. *NN. *0H. *mN. COprHwLLOO mHmeHSE oo. mo.1 oo. :o.1 oo. oH. mH. oo. :H. HH. no. mo. Ho. oo.1 wocwcmce< mHsm No.1 50. mo.1 NH. No.1 MH.1 00.1 Ho. m0. HH. mo. H0.1 :H.1 :0.1 QHszmUMcH HmoHpHHom 2H. 00. mo. 50. 0H. m0. 0H. :0.1 H0. HH. MH.1 00. H0. m0.l COHpMEOp3< *:N.1 No.1 *mN.1 NN.1 0H.1 NH.1 MH.1 .0. oo. *mH. :0.1 N . 50. mo.1 Hoppcoo :HHHm 50.1 mH.I 50. 0N.I H0. 00. N0. :H.1 50. *5H.1 @0.1 m0.1 w0.1 N0. mCHhmmm UHHSO :H. 00. *wN. HH. 00. 50.1 No.1 0H. NH. 0H. *OH. *CH. 50.1 mH.1 wwcmso Mme mtogommo HmHsmwm :5 upwxomme HmHomdm w:H Hmooe o m a m m H Hmooe o m : m m H moHocha> mcoHuchLLoo Ho>cq mHmom mz1nm< COHHMHCcHHO mmcwso .mcHQEMm CMELwo L0H mcoHuwHohhoo oHQHpHSE out HmHuLmo COHpmHCcHHo cwcm361m21mm<11.mH mqm<9 143 positive and negative product—moment correlations. It is not surprising, therefore, that nearly all of these multi- ple correlations reach the .05 level of significance. Hagood and Price (1952) have pointed out: The coefficient of multiple correlation does not have any direction since the concept of direction is not applicable to association between one variable and several others considered simulta— neously. The coefficient of multiple correlation is often a combined measure of positive and nega- tive relationships (p. 508). Thus, while there is obviously a relationship within the various samples and the total sample between the change orientation variables and the ABS—MR, in the sense that a significant amount of ABS—MR variance can be accounted for by the multiple correlation coefficients, the relationship is not a straightforward one as predicted by Hypothesis 11. It is therefore concluded that the data in Table 19 do not support this hypothesis. Relating Attitudes to Opinions on Educational Aid and Planning H—l2: Agreement with government aid to education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Hypothesis 12 was tested by correlating the ABS—MR ith items 93 and 94 of the personal questionnaire which eal with opinions regarding increased federal and local overnment financial support of education respectively. hese correlations are reported for the German samples in able 20. 144 .mo.v m* 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 mo. 00. :0.1 *MH. *wH. m0.1 *mH.1 00. mo. mo. *mH. *5H. m0.1 *0H.1 No. mo.1 0N.1 HH. 0H. 0H. 5H.1 0H. 50. 00. 50. MN. *5N. No. *:m. .0H. 00. *Hm. *NN. *NN. HH. 0H. 50. NH. HN. *NN. :0. NH.1 mo.1 00. *NN.1 :0. :0. m0.1 Ho.1 mo.1 00. :H.1 0H. 50. 0H.1 :0.1 c 0H< Hmpmo m mHQEmm Hcpoe HNm UH< Hmooq 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 H mucomm o.< H omohmoom1coz mo mescpmm 05 ©H< HwooH 1III1I1lIlIl1IlIllllillll|111lllilill|1l1 H mpcomm o < H mm>szomxm1Hmwmcmz mo UH< HQOOH 11lI1ll11lillllllllllllllllllllll oH< Haemomo omosmomm co monocao HHH 0H< Hdooq :H. HH. *mN. HH. mo. No.1 Ho.1 NH. :0. *mN. mo. :0. :o. No. mH. :H. *NN. :H. *HN. 00.1 *HN.1 *0H. *mH. *wN. *oH. *5H. 00.1 *Hm.1 Hoooo o m : m m H wCOHudechHOO H®>mq QHQUW mzlmmdw 0H: Hmpmomm mpcnomme LmHzmcm :5 UH< HoooH UH: Haemomm mpmgomme HmHomom 0:H 0H4 Hmooq mcanHHm> 050mm .moHQEmm :mELco mom 11 111ll.\r)l;l!) )3 3115 41341111144 ..‘Jq i 145 Table 20 reveals that the education variables bear the strongest relationship to ABS-MR attitudes in the special educator group where 8 of the 12 scale level cor— relations reach significance. A number of other signifi— cant correlations are scattered throughout Table 20 but in none of the other groups does a pattern emerge as clearly as with the special teachers where negative cor— relations are found on levels 1 and 2 (although the latter were not significant) and positive correlations are found on the rest of the scales. Turning to the figures for the total sample, it is noted that the direction and magnitude of the correlation coefficients for the two aid variables are in close agree— ment. Judging from the figures for the total sample, it would appear that the aid—to-education variables are re- lated to ABS—MR attitudes primarily at the more abstract and impersonal levels: negatively on the stereotypic level 1 and positively on the moral and hypothetical be— havior levels 3 and 4. The negative to positive change in correlational sign from levels 2 to 3 has been noted pre— viously in conjunction with other hypotheses and appears once again in the figures for the total sample in Table 20. In summary, Hypothesis 12 is generally supported nly within the special educator group and is partially upported for the total sample on two of the six ABS—MR cales. 146 H—l3: Agreement with centralized government plan— ning of education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Hypothesis 13 was tested by correlating the ABS—MR with responses to item 95 of the personal questionnaire. This item measures the extent to which education should be planned by governmental agencies, on a continuum ranging from planning directed primarily by the church to planning directed primarily by the federal government. The result— ing correlations are displayed for the German samples in Table 21. As may be seen in Table 21, only three correlations reach the .05 level of significance: a negative correla— tion on level 4 (hypothetical behavior) for the regular teachers and positive correlations on levels 3 (moral evaluative) and 4 for the parents of retarded. While a rationale can be provided for the positive correlations, i.e., agreement with centralized government planning is consistent with a liberal and hence presumably more flex— ible and accepting attitude toward deviants, the negative correlation for the regular teachers is not self explana— tory and is perhaps a chance phenomenon. The figures for the total group show once again the previously seen pattern of a shift from negative to posi— tive correlations from level 2 to level 3, with signifi— cant negative correlations once again appearing on 147 .mo.v.m * :o.1 Ho. oo.1 oo. *NH. *oo.1 *5H.1 oHasmm Hosea on :0. mH. Ho. 0H. No.1 HH.1 m0. soundpmm1coz mo mpcmpmm 00 :0.1 m0.1 :0.1 0H.1 00. 0H. N0. mm>HHSocHM1comocmz N0 00., Ho.1 0H.1 *HN. *mN. oo. 0H.1 omohopom mo mucopom m:H mH.1 0H.1 No.1 *:N.1 H0.1 mo. 00. mpmsomce soHsmmm :5 00.1 No.1 50.1 00.1 No.1 00.1 No.1 mpcgoome HoHooom 0:H Hmooe o m H m m H 030H0 mQOHponpLoo Hc>cH chom mz1mm< .onQEow cospoo pom mQOHp 1meLp00 COHpmozoo Ho mchcmHQ omNHHmecwo 00H: pcoEcmomm1mZ1mm<11.HN mqmParents of the Mentally Retarded>Regular Teachers>Manager—Executives. 149 H-l6: Parents of Normal Children will have less positive attitudes than any other group. It may be recalled from Chapter IV that the original research proposal did not anticipate the inclusion of a sample of parents of non—retarded children in the study, hence the redundancy of two hypotheses where one would suffice. A revised, ex post facto hypothesis incorporating the predictions of Hypotheses l4 and 16 would read as follows: The groups will assume the following order with respect to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded: Teachers of the Mentally Retarded>Parents of the Mentally Retarded>Regular Teachers>Manager-Executives>Parents of Non—Retarded Children. Hypotheses l4 and 16, or more conveniently, the com— bined Hypothesis 14-16, was tested through a one way analy— sis of variance procedure for each of the samples on each of the ABS—MR scale levels and totals using means adjusted for sample size and sex differences. The multiple means test described in Chapter IV was also applied to the data and each mean was tested against every other mean in an 3 test producing results equivalent to a two tailed t test. The results of this analysis appear in Table 22 where the sample groups are listed in the hypothesized order of differences for the reader's convenience. It will be noted at the outset that the groups assumed the hypothesized order only on ABS—MR level 4—— 150 .m0.v m* omUHMuwm1noz Mo musmpmmm mo>H0300xm1Lommcmzm mocnomma HmHsmcm: ocpampom mo mpcmhmmm meteomoe coHpmosom HoHoodmN .mNHm mHoEmm 0:0 xwm com omumznom mm . .mzwmo zoxma amxmo memo *oo.om 00.50 :o.mo 0H.55 oH.m0 00 mo . a o mzAzm .emxza Hmzxmo .memo . . .zoxmo Hmerm .emxem .zoxam *oo.mm 55.0oH oo.0o 5:.H0 50.5oH 00.0oH mwcHHmma 0 zawmo .mzxmo .emxmm mzaxem .mzxem .emxem *oH.om 00.00 mo.moH Hm.ooH :0.:NH Hm.5mH c0H>moom .000: .0 . . .zoxem .mZAem mowem .zaxem mzxem .moxem *om.0 mm.HmH :m.omH 05.m0H 00.5NH 00.00H Hobo: .m emxmo mamxmz HEmAZo .emxzo .moxzo *oH.:H 00.00 mo.o5 00.05 oo.55 0H.0o Esoz .m . . . .waem .omxmz .emxmz “smxmo emxmo mzxmm .mezm emxza .mzxzm *5m.M5 50.00 om.o5 50.00 :0.55 50.0: maooomcmom .H l , WHm>cH *pmme memo: mHoHpHsz a 020 o5 mm: :0 em 05 000 o:H mam 03H meom mzlmm< .meQEMm cwEHoo Mom mpHSmwh poop modes oHQHuHSE 0:0 no.0 H .wcmos sapwooom m21mm<11.mm mqmae 151 hypothetical behavior. Even here, however, the differences between all of the means were not significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the special teachers and the parents of retarded on the one hand, or between the regular teachers, the manager—executives and the parents of non-retarded on the other, with both the special teachers and parents of retarded scoring signifi— cantly higher than all of the latter groups on this scale level. It has previously been pointed out in connection with the testing of several other hypotheses that a definite change of direction seems to occur in some cases from level 2 to level 3 where the "referent"——the person to whom the opinion or behavior is attributed-—shifts from "others" to "self." This phenomenon is once again demon— strated rather clearly when the scores of the special edu— cation teachers and the parents of non—retarded children are compared on the first four ABS—MR levels. On levels 1 and 2 the parents of normals attributed the most favorable attitudes to others while the special educators scored lowest on these two levels. On levels 3 and 4 just the reverse occurs, with the special teachers attributing the most favorable attitudes to themselves while the parents of non—retarded children score lowest of all groups on these two levels. The special educators also scored con- sistently (and significantly) higher on levels 5 and 6 152 than did the parents of normals although the differences in rank order of scores for these two groups was not as striking on these two levels as on the first four. The parents of retarded children were consistently high on levels 1, 4, 5, and 6 and approximately in the middle range of scores on levels 2 and 3 while the regular teachers were in the low or middle range of scores on all levels. The manager—executives, like the parents of non— retarded, scored higher on the first two levels, in com— parison to the pattern for the other groups, than on the remaining scale levels, and this group had the lowest scores of all groups on levels 5 and 6. It is quite apparent at this point that the total ABS-MR scores are relatively meaningless in this research since different dimensions of attitudes seem to be being measured in a non—additive fashion. For example, the small difference between the special teachers and the parents of non—retarded on the total ABS—MR in no way re— flects the striking difference and reversal of these groups on levels 1 and 2 on the one hand, and levels 3 and 4 (or levels 5 and 6 to a lesser extent) on the other. In retrospect, and in View of the complexity of the relationships which have emerged, Hypothesis 14-16 which predicted the rank order of differences between groups seems presumptuous and it seems rather surprising in fact that the hypothesized ordering actually emerged on one l53 ABS-MR level. In short, the group—scale level relationship was an interactive one and not straightforward as predicted by Hypotheses l4 and 16 and it is concluded that these hypo— theses are not supported. Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality H—15: The ABS-MR scale levels or attitude sub- universes will form a Guttman Simplex for each of the German groups. Hypothesis 15 was tested by plotting the combined content-intensity scale level intercorrelation matrices for each sample and subjecting these matrices to Kaiser's (1962) simplex approximation test, described in Chapter IV, which generates a goodness of fit value, i.e., g2, for the obtained matrices and then rearranges these matrices into the "best" simplex order for which a Q2 value is also given. The obtained and empirically re—ordered matrices, along with their corresponding g2 values, are shown in Table 23 for each of the German samples. It will be recalled from the discussion of Kaiser's test in Chapter IV that two rather serious limitations eemed to be present: (a) the value g2 is a descriptive tatistic with no test of significance presently available 0 evaluate how well a simplex is approximated, and (b) e—ordering of the matrices according to Kaiser's method oes not always produce the best simplex obtainable using .00. u Ho>oH mo. pm L mo o:Hm> HmoHuHhoo .wH. u Ho>wH mo. um H Ho wSHm> HooHuHHOM .MN. n Ho>mH mo..um L no ous> HooHuHcom .MN. n Hw>wH mo. 00 L Ho.m:Hm> HMOHuHHoN .NNu u Hc>mH mo. on c 00 cSHo> HMQHHHLQ: .mH. n Hc>oH mo. no H 00 osHm> HooHpHLOH o m : m m H o m : m N H o m H m N H 111 :m. m:. mN. 00.1 No. 111 MH. 0:. NH.1 0H. 111 00. 5o. HN. 00.1 oo. o 111 0H. 0H. HH.1 00.1 111 5H. :m. HN. 111 mo. No. NH. mo.1 m 111 mm. m0. :H.1 111 0m. 0m. 111 :0. No.1 0H. : monLumz 11H HH. NH. mm. :N. M11 00. 0H. m oopooho 500. 1 No 111 o0. 000. 111 om. gm. 1 N0 111 5:. N 111 111 111 H 111 :H.1 mo.1 111 MH. 0:. NN. NH.1 0H. 111 00. HN. 50. oo. 00.1 0 NH. HH. 111 5H. 5N. :m. HN. 111 No. mo. mo.1 NH. m No. oof 111 00. on. om. 111 oo. 0H. oo. : $3.3m: 00. HH.1 M11 m. :N. 11.11 OH. No.1 m 0950090 111 om. 0mm. u N3 111 0m. H:m. M NO 111 5:. N 111 111 . 111 H cHQEmm Houoe NNm mooocmoom1co: no nucccmo H5 :mc>Hu:owxM1Lowocmz :0 1 “H 0 5 _ 11 111 mH. 00. N0. 00.1 No.1 111 NN. 0:. :N. 0H. H0. 111 :H. mm. mm. H0.1 No.1 0 111 mm. 00. :0. mo. 111 :0. NH. 0 . 0H.1 111 0:. mm. 50. H0. m 111 0H. NH. N0. 111 mm. :N. 00. 111 5N. mo. 00.1 : mooHHumz .H11 mm. NN. M11 7:. r1. H11 5H.1 mH.1 m Umhmopo N:0 1 N0 111 Wmi 5 ... n N: 111 WW1 000 n N0 111 WW1 m 111 N0. mH. 00. 00.1 N0. 111 :N. 0:. NN. H0. 0H. 111 5H.1 mH.1 o 111 mo. 0H. mm. NN. 111 mm. NH. 5N. 0:. H0.1 No.1 0 111 mm. :0. mo. 111 :0. N . :N. 50. H0. : mooHLooz M11 NH. No.1 M11 0H.1 0H. mo. 00.1 m occHMQQo :00. 1 0 111 Hm. 005. n 0 111 5N. 111 0:. N N 111 N 111 111 H mooocmoom mo moccpmm 0:H Nmpwcommo Hijuo: :5 HonccomoB HoHooom m:H 0 m _ : m N H 0 m : m N H o m : m N H .medeom :mEpco Lou m21mm< Ho>mH HHw co mooHHuoE omamoco HHHooHLHQEc 0cm owchuoo Loo m.NM11.mm mqmredicted direction and opposite the predicted direction 1n levels 1 and 2. 162 TABLE 24.—-ABS—MR adjusted means1 and E's.for parents of retarded children attending versus parents of retarded children not attending a special school for the moderately retarded. ABS—MR Scale 124 With Children 20 With Children 3 Levels Attending Not Attending l. Stereotype 76.80 81.05 .81 2. Norm 76.24 83.05 1.38 3. Moral 127.54 126.65 .20 4. Hypo. Behavior 125.91 113.75 1.87* 5. Feelings 107.85 102.30 1.17 6. Behavior 94.35 86.70 1.85* ABS-MR Total Score 608.69 593.50 .94 1Adjusted for sex and sample size. * P.<.05. The results suggest that the parents of moderately retarded in a special school see themselves as being more willing to interact with the retarded and report more favorable actual behavioral interactions than do those parents whose children have not yet been admitted to a special school. To what extent these differences might e attributable to a possible difference in the ages of he retarded children in the two groups is unclear. That ignificant differences between the two groups in the pre— icted direction did occur on two of the six ABS-MR scale evels is interpreted as providing partial support for ypothesis l7. 163 H-18: There will be a positive relationship between the length of time a moderately retarded child has been attending a special school and the favorableness of his parent's attitude toward mental retardation. Hypothesis 18 was tested by correlating the ABS—MR with the responses of the parents of moderately retarded children attending the Max-Wittmann school to item 142 of the questionnaire which measures the length of time a retarded child has been in a special school. The corre- lations resulting from this procedure are shown in Table 25. Examination of Table 25 reveals that three scale level correlations reach significance: negative correlations on levels 3 and 4 and a positive correlation on level 6. The two negative correlations suggest the somewhat surprising interpretation that the longer a retarded child has been attending a special school, and hence presumably the older the child, the less favorable is the opinion of the parent with regard to how both other people should behave toward the retarded and how the parent himself would behave to— ward the retarded. This is in conjunction with the some— what contradictory positive correlation on level 6 which suggests that the longer a retarded child has been in a special school the more positive are the parent's reported actual behavioral interactions with the retarded. In short, it would appear that the longer the retarded child as been in a special school the less the parent expects _ -____l 164 .moovom * HH.1 *mm. oo. *mm.1 *Hm.1 mo.1 :o.1 Hoonem cH msHe Hmpoe 0 m : m N H mcoHponHHoo Hm>oH mHoom mzlmm< .coHoHHno when» 00 mucocoo HHH pom mQOHpmHoppoo Hoonom HoHoQO mcHocoppm some mo: oHHso omopopmp NHHmpmpmooe m mer1m21mm¢11.mN mHmHe 165 of both others and himself in reference to the retarded, while conversely, the more positive he finds his own be— havioral interactions with the retarded. This finding may be interpreted as suggestive of increasing ambivalence being associated with the length of time the child has been in school or, on the other hand, it may be sugges— tive of the adoption of more realistic expectations of both others and the self as well as more accepting atti- tudes on the behavioral leVel with increasing age since similar findings resulted for these parents in connection with H—9 which related age to attitudes. At any rate, the occurrence of only one significant positive correlation is seen as providing minimal and par— tial support for Hypothesis l8. H—l9: Experienced special education teachers of the mildly retarded will have more positive attitudes to— ard mental retardation than will inexpprienced special ducation teachers of the mildly retarded. Hypothesis 19 was tested by comparing the fully ertified special education teacher and student special ducation teacher sub—groups described in Chapter IV via nalysis of variance on the ABS—MR and conversion of the esultant E's to 3's in a fashion similar to that de— cribed for Hypothesis 17. The results of this analysis re presented in Table 26. 166 TABLE 26.——ABS—MR adjusted means1 and 3's for experienced versus inexperienced special education teachers. ABS—MR Scale 51 Experienced 97 Inexperienced 3 Levels Special Teachers Special Teachers 1. Stereotype 47.26 51.46 1.26 2. Norm 66.88 70.41 1.01 3. Moral 137.53 134.23 1.03 4. Hypo. Behavior 128.00 126.88 .24 5. Feelings 112.41 107.23 1.55 6. Behavior 92.18 79.00 4.09* ABS-MR Total Score 584.26 569.21 1.24 1 Adjusted for sex and sample size. * P.<.05. Table 26 indicates a significant difference in the Predicted direction between the two groups only on the behavioral level 6. Thus, the experienced special edu— cators reported significantly more positive behavioral nteractions with the retarded than did inexperienced pecial educators. It is not unreasonable to assume, owever, that the former group also had more opportunity or such interactions as a function of their greater ex— erience by definition, which casts some doubt on the eaningfulness of this statistically significant dif— erence . 167 As an aside, it is interesting to note that the differences between the two groups, irrespective of sig— nificance level, was opposite the predicted direction on levels 1 and 2 and in the predicted direction on levels 3—6. 'Reference to the means in Table 24 for the parents of retarded in school and the parents of retarded not in school will reveal exactly the same phenomenon. Again, although these differences are not significant for the most part, they seem to provide further support for the oft noted trend in the German data of a shift from level 2 to level 3 where the "referent"—-the person to whom the attitude is being attributed——shifts from "others" to "self." Returning to Hypothesis 19, the meaningfulness of the one significant difference occurring in support of this hypothesis has been questioned and it is concluded that Hypothesis 19 is not supported. H—20: Experienced regular teachers will have more ppsitive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will ippxperienced regular teachers. Hypothesis 20 was tested by comparing the fully certified and probationary elementary school teachers de- scribed in Chapter IV on the ABS—MR via analysis of vari— ance and conversion of F's to 2'5 as was done with regard to Hypotheses l7 and 19. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 27. 168 TABLE 27.—-ABS—MR adjusted means1 and 3's for experienced versus inexperienced regular school teachers. ABS—MR Scale 22 Experienced 52 Inexperienced 3 Levels Regular Teachers Regular Teachers 1. Stereotype 60.91 64.42 .62 2. Norm 79.86 69.98 1.90* 3. Moral 123.09 138.40 3.22** 4. Hypo. Behavior 102.73 111.02 1.19 5. Feelings 94.23 89.37 .98 6. Behavior 84.23 73.15 2.30* ABS—MR Total Score 545.05 546.35 .10 1Adjusted for sex and sample size. * P.<.05 with one tailed test. ** P.<.O5 with two tailed test. Table 27 reveals that significant differences occurred between the two groups in the predicted direction on levels 2 and 6 with a one tailed test, while conversion of the obtained F to E on level 3 resulted in a significant difference between the two groups opposite to prediction when a two tailed test was applied. As was the case with the special teachers, the meaningfulness of the obtained difference between the experienced and inexperienced regu- lar teachers on level 6 can be questioned because of the Former group's possible greater opportunity for behavioral 169 interactions with the retarded. The remaining two dif— ferences between the two groups which reach statistical significance are in opposite directions and are contra- dictory. Since the differences which have arisen between the two groups are not straightforward and consistent as pre— dicted by Hypothesis 20, it is concluded that this hypo— thesis is not supported. Relatipg Attitudes and Level of Retardation H-2l: Persons most familiar with the mildly men- tally retarded will have more positive attitudes toward mental retardation in general than will persons most familiar with the moderately and/or severely mentally retarded. Hypothesis 21 was tested by dividing the total German sample into five categories according to responses to questionnaire item 141 which asks the subject to mark the level of mental retardation with which he is most familiar or has the most knowledge about. Analysis of variance was then carried out for the five resultant groups on each of the ABS—MR scale levels in a fashion similar to that described for Hypotheses l4 and 16. Table 28 shows the means, 3'3, and multiple means test results for the five sub—groups divided according to the procedure described above. .mO.V.m * .oNHw wHQEMm 0:0 xow How oopmsnomomm .0 0o.H 00.00 o0.ooH o0.mHH 05.0oH 00.HoH mmcHHmmo .0 oH.H 0H.0oH 00.0HH 05.0HH mo.0HH 00.0HH t0H>momm .0000 .: HHAHE .ozAHz HHaxmm .ozxmm *NH.: 05.:NH 5:.o0H o0.H:H 00.0NH 0o.NMH Hate: .m zzAmm .Hzxmm .ozAmm .HHAmm *0m.0 :0.05 H0 :5 00.0oH 0H.55 55 :5 stoz .N Honz .zonz MHzAHH .zzAH: HHzAmm .zzxmm .ozxmm *o0.5H om.05 H0.00 05.00 00.05 o0.H0 mosoomtmom .H *umoe meet: mHoHoHsz a :: u z 0: u z 0 n z 00H 1 2 00m 1 z mHt>oH mpocooo: oHoom mz1mm< mHm>oH HHH one oHHz ott>mm moatmooz oHHz wcHoHOoow oHoEMm smegoo HMHOp pom mu m.z 0cm QHHB HmHHHEmL pmoz COHpNUHmumm MO Hm>mH .cpHs MNHHHemm pmoE COHpmopopoh mo Ho>wH Op Homog poop memoE deHpHss 0cm .m_m mecme Uwpwdnwm mzlmmf 8 achieved the lowest mean score. Those who chose the 'mild" alternative were significantly higher than those 1ho chose "moderate” on level 3 and significantly lower >n level 6. The N and scores of those who chose the 'moderate“ alternative (cf., Table 22) lead to the sus— 1icion that most of those who chose this alternative were >arents of moderately retarded children, although the :omputer analysis provided no specific check as to the Lctual composition of the groups in Table 28. At any rate, only on ABS—MR level 3 did those who hose the "mild" retardation alternative score signifi— antly higher than any of those who chose other alterna- ives. Hypothesis 21 which predicted higher scores for his group than for any of the others was therefore learly not supported. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Problem Renewed interest has been expressed recently in cross-cultural research in general and in cross—cultural studies of disability. It has been pointed out that at- titudes, in part culturally dependent, are important in determining whether the mentally retarded obtain the en— couragement and guidance necessary for them to lead so— cially useful and independent lives. This study consti— tuted part of a comprehensive effort to research atti— tudes toward the mentally retarded in several nations using similar samples and a common instrument——the Attitude Behavior Scale—Mental Retardation (ABS—MR)——which was derived from Guttman's facet theory. The purpose of the present research was to investigate attitudes toward mental retardation across the six levels or sub—scales of the ABS—MR as well as to assess the predictive validity of certain hypothesized determinants and/or correlates of attitudes with selected groups in the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany). Germany was included in the larger international study because of its similarity to 172 173 the United States in economic and technological develop— ment and difference in language, history, and educational provisions for the retarded. Related Research A thorough review of the literature was attempted on studies appearing in the last decade concerned with attitudes toward the mentally retarded. The studies re— viewed varied considerably in sophistication of design and control and many were not comparable. Areas reviewed included (a) self attitudes of the retarded, (b) peer and general community attitudes, (0) teacher attitudes, (d) parental attitudes, (e) employer attitudes, and (f) atti- tude change. Many of the studies reviewed produced results which were inconsistent and at times contradictory. .Although no consensus existed, the review indicated that numerous variables seem to be related to attitudes toward mental retardation and that these variables generally fall into four categories: (a) demographic factors, (b) general value orientation, (c) knowledge of retardation, and (d) contact with the retarded. None of the studies em- ployed an attitude scale based on the structural facet theory of attitudes proposed by Guttman and it was felt that this might have been a contributing factor to the lack of consistent results. In addition, not one study was found which attempted to relate or generalize findings cross-culturally. 174 Some methodological problems and considerations in cross—cultural research were reviewed, organized around the topics of relevancy, equivalency, and measurement as they related to the present research. It was shown that mental retardation is a relevant concept in Germany where approximately 6% of school age children are considered to fall in the educable and trainable ranges of mental retardation. The Germans have traditionally maintained a separate and segregated educational system for the educable retarded and other disability groups, while edu— cation for the trainable or moderately retarded has not even been considered until very recent times; as late as 1964 only about 15% of the latter were being served in special schools. Measurement problems in cross—cultural attitude research revolve around the numerous dimensions of atti— tudes and the difficulty of controlling same. The posi— tion was taken that an attitude scale such as the ABS—MR which was systematically constructed according to facet theory provided the most efficient means of controlling the content, structure, and intensity dimensions of attitudes. A final problem in cross—cultural research is in assuring instrument and sampling equivalency to in turn insure the collection of comparable data. The solution equires specialized local knowledge of culture and 175 ,nguage in sample selection and translation respectively, .d it was felt that highly competent assistance was ob— ined in Germany in the present research. strumentation The criterion instrument used in this study——the S—MR——was constructed according to Guttman's facet theory ich specifies that an attitude universe can be sub— ructured into components which are systematically re— ted according to the number of identical conceptual ements they hold in common. Facet design permits the istruction of a scale by a semantic, logical, a priori zhnique and the prediction of the order structure re— Lting from empirical application. Guttman defined attitude as "a delimited totality behavior with respect to something" and proposed that *ee semantic facets, each containing two elements, .ld account for an eight permutation attitude universe. y four permutations were semantically consistent, how— r, and these four permutations or attitude levels ade— tely accounted for the item content used in an earlier earch effort. Guttman named these levels (1) Stereo- e, (2) Norm, (3) Hypothetical Interaction, and (4) sonal Interaction. Each of the three facets contained eak and a strong element and the four levels showed a gression from a weak to a strong form of behavior with additional strong element appearing on each level. 176 us, no strong elements appeared on the Stereotype level d each succeeding level contained one more strong element an its predecessor until the Personal Interaction level ntained all strong elements. Guttman's Contiguity Hypo— esis stated that attitude item levels close to each der in the semantic scale of their definitions would so be close statistically and the resulting matrix of :itude level correlations would assume a simplex order— ;. If the four levels defined above were plotted from :o 4 from left to right and from top to bottom in a cor— -ation matrix, a perfect simplex would exhibit descending solute values of coefficients moving down the columns 1 ascending values moving from left to right in the rows. rn Guttman rearranged the earlier data according to the 1antic structural considerations of facet theory, the -dicted simplex relationship was essentially maintained, ‘h only one order reversal occurring. Jordan accepted Guttman's three facets but included others to form a six level paradigm of attitude struc— e. Again, each facet contained a weak and a strong ent and each level contained one more strong element its predecessor. Jordan's six levels were (1) etal Stereotype, (2) Societal Interactive Norm, (3) onal Moral Evaluation, (4) Personal Hypothetical Be— 'or, (5) Personal Feelings, and (6) Actual Personal vior. This structural model of attitudes is termed 177 1njoint struction while additional facets accounting for ecific item content is termed disjoint struction. A x level attitude scale measuring attitudes toward mental tardation——the ABS—MR—-was constructed from a mapping ntence containing the conjoint and disjoint struction cets so that each and every item corresponded to a combi— tion of facet elements in the mapping sentence. The nal scale contained a total of 20 items on each level i the content measure of each item was followed by an :ensity measure. A preliminary study was undertaken nparing a group of special education—rehabilitation 1duate students, education sophomores, and Belize LChers. General problems of validity were discussed and it pointed out that the ABS—MR provided a somewhat unique ortunity to compare different dimensions of attitudes. implex was essentially obtained for each of the groups Eredicted by facet theory and it was felt that this ory and the mapping sentences which follow from it par— 1ar1y enhance content validity. The ABS-MR differ— 'ated the three groups and this was interpreted as pro— 'ng concurrent validation. Various aspects of reliability were discussed and r—Richardson—like reliabilities for the three groups he six levels and total scores ranged from .60 to .89. reliabilities obtained were comparable to those ob— ed on other attitude scales and it was concluded that 178 the reliability of the ABS—MR was adequate for group re- search. A procedure for combining content and intensity scores into one score for each item was described. The procedure increases the range of scores for each item and vas used in the present German research in the hope of anhancing reliability and clarifying relationships. A number of ABS—MR limitations were discussed, most 1f which stemmed from the newness and complexity of the echnique. Among these limitations were included failure 0 control for (a) response sets, (b) social desirability, c) homogeneous disjoint struction, and (d) alternative ermutations of facet elements. A questionnaire containing measures of the indepen— ent variables of the study was also described. Among 1e items in this questionnaire were measures of_(a) demo— ‘aphic variables, (b) Change Orientation—~a series of lestions used in an earlier study, (0) opinions on edu— Ltional aid and planning, (d) contact with handicapped 1rsons, (e) Efficacy——a scale designed to measure atti- des toward man's effectiveness in the face of his nat- al environment, and (f) Knowledge About Mental Retarda— ggr-a scale also adapted from previous research. The minor alterations in the ABS—MR and the question- ire which resulted from the translation into German were ie in an attempt to maintain concept equivalence rather in strict literal translation. These changes were listed I briefly discussed. 179 sign and Analysis Samples in the Federal Republic of Germany were .ected to be comparable to groups tested or to be tested other countries or cultures. The samples consisted of 1 147 parents of moderately retarded children, (b) 148 *cial education teachers of the mildly retarded, (c) regular elementary school teachers, (d) 84 manager— cutives, and (e) 71 parents of normal children. The cial characteristics of each sample and the sampling hniques used were described with a view toward possible itations on external validity. Most of the individuals ted were from the Dortmund area of West Germany and the ting was done in groups with the exception of part of parents of retarded group and all of the manager- zutive group which were surveyed by mail. All in all, vas felt that the obtained samples were quite good, erally representative, and adequate for a study of this A total of 15 major research hypotheses were formulated h were based on previous research and which were to ested in all of the countries and/or cultures parti— ting in the larger international study. In addition, special characteristics of the German samples also ided the opportunity to test six additional hypotheses h are unique to this research. The total of 21 theses will be listed in the following segment of this iry along with the results of the analysis. L— . -.. 180 The data obtained were analyzed by computer at :higan State University. Product—moment, partial, and _tiple correlation procedures were used to test the *ious hypotheses, as were one—way analysis of variance 1 a multiple means test. In addition, a simplex approxi— .ion test was used which produces a descriptive statis— (g2) for obtained attitude level matrices and matrices rdered into a "best” simplex order, despite some obvious itations because no better alternative procedure was ilable. The .05 level of significance was accepted pite the danger of Type I errors because of the early ge of facet theory development in the study of attitudes. plpg Kuder—Richardson type reliabilities were obtained each of the sample groups on each of the ABS—MR levels total scores for both content scores alone and com— ed content—intensity scores to test the efficacy of s procedure in the present research. The combined re reliabilities ranged from .60 to .92 and were con— ently higher than the content—only reliabilities which ed from .55 to .90, while the average item—to-scale l correlations also increased through the combining edure. The reliability estimates for the German les were very similar to those of the standardization ps, with the moral evaluation level 3 reliabilities g lowest and the ABS—MR total score reliabilities 181 ing highest in both cases. The overall reliability of e German translation of the ABS—MR was considered ade— ate for the present research. A summary of the results of the testing of each aothesis follows. On several of the correlational hypo— eses the individual sample groups were relatively homo— 1eous with respect to the predictor variables, while at a same time differences between the groups on these :iables showed up in the correlations for the total mle. H-l: Persons who score high in efficacy will score h in positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded. 11 but statistically significant correlations between efficacy variable and ABS—MR levels 1 and 2 (stereo— e and norm) and total scores for the entire sample were erpreted as providing only partial and weak support this hypothesis. H-2: Persons who score high in knowledge about' al retardation will score high in positive attitudes rd the mentally retarded. Hypothesis 2 was not sup- ed. A predominance of negative correlations between knowledge scale and the ABS-MR suggested in fact that, the exception of special educators, knowledge may be rsely related to attitudes toward the mentally re— ed. 182 H—3: The more frequent the contact with mentally retarded persons the higher will be the intensity scores on the ABS—MR, regardless of the direction (positiveness or negativeness) of attitude. Hypothesis 3 was generally supported as significant correlations were found between 111 but level 2 (normative) ABS—MR intensity scores and Trequency of contact with the retarded for the total sample. As a digression, content and combined content— _ntensity scores were also correlated with the contact 1ariable. The former correlations for the total sample 1ere significantly negative on levels 1 and 2 (stereo- 1ype and norm) and significantly positive on levels 3—6 moral, hypothetical behavior, feelings, and actual be— ,avior). The opposite direction correlations cancelled ach other out on the total score correlation, with fre— uency of contact and total ABS-MR content correlation Pr the total sample being .00. This finding suggested at the ABS-MR was measuring different dimensions of | titudes on the different scale levels. The combined I ntent—intensity correlations closely resembled the ontent—only correlations but were somewhat higher overall, ius supporting the rationale for combining content— itensity scores. H—4: The more frequent the contact with other dis— )ility groups the higher will be the intensity scores on 1e ABS—MR regardless of the direction of attitude. 183 strumentation errors in the questionnaire measuring the lependent variables prevented a reasonable test of >0thesis 4. H—5: High frequency of contact with mentally re— ’ded persons will be associated with favorable attitudes 'ard the mentally retarded if high frequency is concur— .t with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) e of avoidance of the contact, and (c) enjoyment of contact. As with Hypothesis 4, instrumentation errors vented a full test of Hypothesis 5 but it was found t two of the four variables originally to be tested, unt and enjoyment of contact, were positively related attitudes toward the retarded for the total sample on els 3-6 of the ABS—MR in direct support of Hypothesis 5. versely, both amount and enjoyment of contact were d to be negatively related to attitudes on ABS—MR ls l and 2 for the total sample. It was therefore cluded that this hypothesis was only partially sup— ted, and it was further noted that the "referent" in facet design on which the ABS—MR was based——the ferent" being the individual to whom the attitude or ivior toward the retarded is attributed—-shifts from iers" to "self" from levels 2 to 3. H—6: Persons who score high on stated importance "eligion will score low on positive attitudes toward mentally retarded. Hypothesis 6 was not supported as 184 e data suggested a weak positive relationship between e religious importance variable and the ABS-MR whereas e hypothesis predicted a negative relationship. H—7: Persons who score high on stated adherence to ligion will score low on positive attitudes toward the itally retarded. As with H-6, this hypothesis was not Jported as the data again suggested a weak positive re— :ionship between ABS—MR attitudes and stated adherence religion while a negative relationship had been pre— :ted between these variables. H-8: Amount of education will be positivelerelated favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Be— 1se of the apparent homogeneity of the individual samples, 2 figures for the total sample were again most instruc— Ve. These figures suggested that an increasing amount education was negatively related to attitudes on ABS—MR els l and 2 and positively related on levels 3 and 4. reasing education was thus related to a tendency to ribute poor attitudes to others on the stereotypic and mative levels and positive attitudes to oneself on the al evaluative and hypothetical behavior levels. Edu— ion was unrelated to the affective and behavior levels nd 6 and it was concluded that Hypothesis 8 was only tially supported. It was further noted that total ABS—MR elations with the education variable and several other 'ables were a meaningless function of the magnitude of site direction scale level correlations. 185 H—9: Age will be positively related to favorable :titudes toward the mentally retarded. While education 1s found to be related to ABS—MR scores primarily at the >re abstract and impersonal levels 1—3, age was found to a positively related to attitudes primarily on the more >ncrete and personal affective and behavior levels 5 and 6 1r the total sample. Rather weak although significant >sitive relationships appeared for both variables on evel 4 but it was concluded that Hypothesis 9 was sup— >rted primarily on levels 5 and 6 of the ABS—MR. H-lO: Women will score higher on positive attitudes uward the mentally retarded than will men. Although an ’ror in computer programming prevented a test of this pothesis within individual samples, no differences were und between the total number of males and females and pothesis 10 was therefore not supported. H—ll: Persons who score high on change orientation 11 score high on positive attitudes toward mental retar— Elgp. This hypothesis was not supported as the various ange orientation questions were apparently measuring fferent dimensions of this variable on each individual 1 S—MR level. Secondly, the individual change orientation estions were apparently being related to different dimen- 1 ans of attitudes on the various ABS-MR scale levels. In 1 >rt, both change orientation and ABS—MR attitudes appeared } be multidimensional and the pattern of relationships 186 which emerged was not constant within each group so that the straightforward relationship predicted by Hypothesis ll simply did not emerge. H—l2: Agreement with government aid to education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Hypothesis 12 received its strong— est support in the special educator group where 6 of 8 correlations between opinions regarding local and federal aid to education and ABS—MR levels 3—6 reached significance. Significant negative correlations appeared once again for the total sample between the stereotypic level 1 and both the local and federal aid variables, while significant positive correlations appeared for both variables on levels 3 and 4 (moral and hypothetical behavior), with the latter being interpreted as providing only partial support for this hypothesis. H—l3: Agreement with centralized gpyernment plan— piggyof education will be positivelyfirelated to favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded. Agreement with centralized government planning of education was positively 1 related to attitudes toward the retarded only on the moral evaluation ABS—MR level 3, while it was negatively related to levels 1 and 2 in the total sample. Thus, the negative to positive correlational shift from levels 1 and 2 to level 3 where the "referent" changes from "others" to "self" was once again noted in connection with this 187 hypothesis which, aside from the positive correlation ap— pearing on level 3, was not otherwise supported. H's—l4 & 16: The groups will assume the following order with regpect to favorable attitudes toward the men— tally retarded: Teachers of the Mentally Retarded>Parents of the Mentally Retarded>Rpgular Teachers>Manager— Executives>Parents of Non—Retarded Children. The combined Hypotheses l4 and 16 were not strongly supported as the groups assumed the hypothesized order only on the hypo— thetical behavior level 4, and even here not all of the means were significantly different from one another. It was noted that the parents of normals scored higher than all other groups on ABS—MR levels 1 and 2 where attitudes are attributed to "others" while the special educators scored lowest of all groups on these two levels. On levels 3 and 4 where attitudes are attributed to the "self" just the reverse occurred with special educators scoring highest and parents of normals scoring lowest. This finding fur— ther supported the notion that the ABS—MR was measuring 1 different dimensions of attitudes and, secondly, that ABS—MR total scores were meaningless since the very small differ— ence between the special teachers and parents of non— retarded on the total scores in no way reflected the striking difference and reversal of these groups on levels 1 and 2 versus levels 3 and 4. 188 H—l5: The ABS—MR scale levels or attitude sub— universes will form a Guttman Simplex for each of the German groups. Neither Guttman‘s Contiguity Hypothesis on which the simplex model is based nor the statistical simplex approximation test accounts for non—positive correlations and a number of these occurred in the matri— ces for the German samples. All of the negative correla— tions were between either level 1 or 2 and the rest of the scales and hence involved negative relationships be— tween how the subjects perceived others relating toward the retarded and how they perceived themselves relating to this group. Several suggested procedures for dealing with the negative correlations were rejected as inappro— priate and they were ignored in computing simplex approxi— mation p2 values but were felt to constitute a sufficient threat to validity in the special teacher and total sample matrices that a simplex could not be considered approximated in either case. Using a p2 criterion value of .70 or greater, a simplex was considered approximated for the regular teachers, the parents of retarded, and the parents of normals but not for the manager—executives. Although a number of limitations of the simplex approximation test Were listed it was still considered the best and most ob- Jective measure available, and by its standard a simplex Nas approximated in three of the five groups. HypotheSls 15, therefore, was partially supported. 189 H—l7: Parents of moderately retarded children at- tending a special school will have more positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will parents of moderately retarded children awaiting admittance to a special school. The predicted difference between these two groups emerged only on the hypothetical and actual behavior levels 4 and 6, suggesting that those parents of retarded attending a special school see themselves as being more willing to in— teract with the retarded and as having had more favorable behavioral interactions with this group, which is in par— tial support of Hypothesis l7. H-l8: There will be a positive relationship between the length of time a moderatelyiretarded child has been attending a special school and the favorableness of his parent's attitude toward mental retardation. A negative elationship emerged on levels 3 and 4 and a positive re— ationship only on level 6 which suggested that the length of time a retarded child was in school was related to de— creasing parental expectations of both others and the self in reference to the retarded, which was concurrent with more positive attitudes on the behavioral level, thus pro— riding only partial and minimal support for this hypothesis. H—l9: Experienced special education teachers of the lildly retarded will have more positive attitudes toward lental retardation than will inexperienced special education eachers of the mildly retarded. The predicted difference 190 between the groups emerged only on the behavioral ABS—MR level 6. The meaningfulness of this difference was ques— tioned however, since the experienced special educators by definition would have had more opportunity for behav- ioral interactions with the retarded than the inexperienced special teachers. Hypothesis 19 was therefore not supported. H—20: Experienced regular teachers will have more positive attitudes toward the mentally retarded than will inexperienced regular teachers. Differences emerged be- tween these two groups in the predicted direction on the normative and behavior levels 2 and 6 and opposite to pre— diction on the moral evaluation level 3. The meaningful- ness of the difference on level 6 was again questioned because of the experienced teachers presumed greater op— portunity for interaction with the retarded. The remaining differences were in opposite directions and not straight— forward and consistent as predicted by Hypothesis 20; this hypothesis was therefore not supported. H—21: Persons most familiar with the mildly men— tally retarded will have more positive attitudes toward mental retardation in general than will persons most fa— miliar with the moderately and/or severely mentally re- tarded. Only on the moral evaluation level 3 did those subjects who stated they were most familiar with mild retardation score higher than any of the subjects who chose other alternatives. The small number of people 191 choosing the "severe" alternative accounted for most of the differences which emerged, scoring highest on levels 1—3 and lowest on ABS—MR level 6. Hypothesis 21 was clearly not supported. Discussion of Results An attempt will be made in this section to review, interpret, and integrate the major findings of the present research. ABS-MR Reliability The close similarity between the absolute values of the reliability estimates obtained for the German samples and for the ABS—MR standardization groups is rather striking. In addition, the same pattern was observed in both instan— ces, with the lowest coefficients of reliability appearing on scale levels 1, 3, and 6. Thus similar reliability coefficients and a similar pattern of these coefficients have been noted in three countries, i.e., the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, and Belize (British Honduras), and in three different languages, i.e., English, German, and Spanish. This suggests that the ABS—MR is measuring the different dimensions of atti— tudes in the various countries with approximately the same degree of reliability, which further suggests that the translations have been accurate in both cases. The cross— cultural implications of this finding, along with other 192 findings of the present research and findings emerging from other countries participating in the larger inter— national study will be discussed more fully in a forth— coming book by the director of the international study.1 Here it may be stated generally that the German sub— jects, as well as the U. S. and Belize subjects, were apparently less certain and consistent with regard to how other people compare and evaluate the retarded and how other people should behave toward this group (levels 1 and 3) than they were of the general societal norm and how they themselves would behave toward the retarded (levels 2 and 4). In short, it may be that while the norm seems clear, the degree to which other people actu— ally observe and should observe the norm is less clear to the subject than the degree to which he himself would ob— serve that norm. In essence then, the findings suggest the not unreasonable conclusion that the subjects were more certain and consistent about their own probable be— havior toward the retarded than they were of other people's attitudes and behavior toward this group. As previously indicated, level 6 reliabilities were also lower in the patterns for both the standardization groups and the German samples than the reliabilities for levels 2, 4, and 5. In addition, the absolute values of reliabilities obtained on this level were somewhat lower 1See Chapter I. 193 for the Germans than for the U. S. and Belize groups. Why the latter should occur is unclear unless perhaps the behavioral interactions described in this sub—scale are not as common in the German cultural situation as in the U. S. and Belize cultures; this seems to be the most reasonable explanation since the content—only reliabili— ties on level 6 were nearly identical to the combined score reliabilities and it will be recalled that the con— tent scores on this level simply reflect whether or not the subject has had the particular experience in question. "Intensity" scores on level 6, as was previously pointed out, were not comparable to those of levels 1-5; level 6 "intensity" measured the degree of pleasantness or unpleasantness of behavioral interactions while inten— 1 sity on levels 1-5 measured the degree of certainty of expressed negative, neutral, or positive attitudes. The combining procedure had the effect of changing level 6 scores from a yes—no (have or have not had the experience in question) to a negative—positive continuum more com— parable to the negative—positive continua on levels 1—5. Although this had the effect of making level 6 scores more comparable to the other ABS-MR levels, it apparently did not seriously alter the relative range of scores on 194 level 6 since the reliabilities for this level increased negligibly as a result of the combining procedure.2 There were, however, slight but consistent increases in the reliability of the remaining scale levels as a result of combining content—intensity scores and the effectiveness of the procedure was particularly demon— strated with the lowest reliabilities which showed the greatest overall increase from the combining procedure. Reliabilities apparently increased through the procedure because the increased range of possible scores for each item increased the discriminative ability of each item. The scale level reliabilities were generally good, and comparable to other attitude scales. On the other hand, while the ABS-MR total score reliabilities were quite high, a caveat is unfortunately in order. These total scores, while quite reliable, are all but meaning— less since it was shown that similar total scores may be made up of considerably different scale level scores, as witness the special teacher and parents of non—retarded scores depicted in Table 22, Chapter V. Total scores, in short, while highly reliable, may not reflect even striking scale level differences and are, for that reason, mis— leading and invalid. 2Reference to the scoring procedure used on level 6 combined content—intensity scores, found in Appendix B, suggests that the most logical content-intensity combina— tions would result in scores of 7-9, thus resulting in the same relative range as content—only responses which per— mitted scores of 1-3. Relating Attitudes and Efficacy The Efficacy scale, which measures the subject's perception of man's degree of control over or effective- ness in the face of his natural environment, was not a strong predictor of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in Germany, as significant correlations appeared for the total sample only on the stereotype and normative levels 1 and 2 and the relatively meaningless total score. Thus, in the total German sample, this variable correlates with attitudes primarily at the most abstract and impersonal levels. It may be that man's degree of control over his environment is not the relevant issue in the highly indus— trialized and technological German culture that it may be 3 This inter— in some of the more underdeveloped nations. pretation, if correct, should emerge more clearly in the subsequent cross—cultural collation of data. It may be too that combining the content and inten— sity responses for this variable in a manner similar to the combining procedure used for ABS—MR content and inten— sity variables would increase the discriminative function of the Efficacy scale and result in more substantial correlations. 3Table 29 in Appendix D also reveals that mean scores on this variable were similar among the various Sample groups. 196 Relating Attitudes and Knowledge Knowledge about mental retardation, it turns out, is apparently primarily a predictor of negative attitudes toward the mentally retarded in Germany. If this finding is replicated or cross validated in Germany it would seem to have profound implications for public information~ education programs in that country since it would appear that such information is negatively related to attitudes, not only at the stereotype level but at the affective and behavioral levels as well. Before concluding definitely that intellectual know— ledge of retardation is related to negative attitudes toward the retarded for all but special educators in Germany, this finding should be demonstrated once again. In addition, the knowledge scale used in this study should be cross validated with German samples. It may be that the seven items which discriminated between the MSU special education—rehabilitation students and education sophomores do not discriminate as well between knowledgeable and un— knowledgeable groups in Germany. This is certainly sug— gested by the mean scores on this variable appearing in Table 29, Appendix D, which suggests it would perhaps be better to score all 16 items in this scale, or perhaps abandon it all together in favor of a scale which dis— criminates more adequately cross—culturally. This is, however, a problem for future research. Relating Attitudes and Contact It seems reasonable to assume that the more contact an individual has had with the mentally retarded the more firmly would his attitude be entrenched and the more cer— tain he would be of his responses to an attitude scale with the mentally retarded as the object. This turned out to be precisely the case in the present research and H—3, which predicted a positive relationship between intensity of attitudes toward the retarded and amount of contact with this group, was perhaps more strongly supported than any other hypothesis. What emerged unexpectedly, however, was that both amount and enjoyment of contact were related to negative attitudes on levels 1 and 2 and positive attitudes on levels 3—6. This suggested that increasing amounts of contact as well as increasing enjoyment of contact with the retarded were related to the subjects attributing negative attitudes to others on the stereotype and norma— tive levels and positive attitudes toward themselves on the moral evaluation, hypothetical behavior, feeling, and actual behavior levels. This descrepancy between how the subjects perceived others relating to the retarded and how they perceived themselves relating to this group emerged in connection with a number of hypotheses and is somewhat surprising in view of the historical stereotype of the authoritarian 198 German personality. It may be that the profound changes and displacements of the past quarter century have signi— ficantly altered the 'German personality.’ It may be too that a projective defense mechanism is operating here, with the subjects attributing their own negative attitudes to others. On the other hand, sampling limitations make such speculation risky at best, and only future research efforts utilizing samples more representative of the German nation as a whole and covering a wider variety of research topics can answer such a question. Relating7Attitudes and Religiosity The religion variables, i.e., religious importance and religious adherence, were not strong predictors of attitudes in the German samples and the predicted negative relationship between these variables and ABS—MR attitudes did not materialize. A predicted negative relationship between the religious variables and attitudes toward the physically handicapped also failed to emerge in Jordan's (1968) earlier cross—cultural study of attitudes and it would appear that religious importance and adherence are simply not strongly correlated with attitudes toward handicapped people. The German data suggest, if anything, a weak positive relationship between the religious vari— ables and ABS—MR attitudes and perhaps a further break— down of the data by religious denomination would produce 199 more clear cut findings similar to those of Zuk (1959), described in Chapter II, who found a significant relation- ship between a mother's religious denomination and accep— tance of her retarded child. Relating Attitudes and Demographic Variables Amount of education was found to be negatively re— lated to ABS—MR attitudes on the stereotypic and normative levels, where the subject attributes attitudes and beliefs to others, and positively on the moral and hypothetical behavior levels, where he attributes attitudes and beliefs to himself. Education was unrelated to the more concrete and personal affective and behavior levels. Thus, amount of education is apparently primarily related to the more abstract dimensions of attitudes and has little effect on feelings about and behavior toward the retarded in the German populations sampled. Increasing age, on the other hand, showed a positive relationship to attitudes on precisely these same affective and behavior levels and was largely unrelated to the more abstract and impersonal ABS—MR levels. Increasing educa- tion was therefore related to favorable beliefs about what others should do and what the subject himself would do in respect to the retarded, whereas increasing age was re- lated primarily to favorable feelings about and behavioral interactions with the retarded. Age, it would then appear, 200 brings about a more meaningful and personal acceptance of the retarded where education has its influence primarily on a more cognitive, intellectual acceptance of this group. Sex, on the other hand, was unrelated to attitudes in the total German sample in this research whereas it was a rather strong predictor of attitudes in Jordan's (1968) study of cross—cultural attitudes toward the physi— cally disabled. Germany was not included in the earlier cross-cultural study and it remains to be seen whether the lack of sexually differential attitudes toward the retarded is typical only of Germany.1 Unfortunately, a computer programming error prevented a test of possible interactive effects of sex within the various sample groups. Relating Attitudes and Change Orientation The change orientation questions behaved inconsis— tently in their prediction of attitudes on the various ABS—MR levels and the data suggested that both the change orientation questions themselves and the ABS—MR were multidimensional. The result was a rather confusing and inconsistent mixture of positive and negative correlations which were impossible to interpret in any consistent fashion. Since a similar confusing array of positive and negative correlations appeared in Jordan's (1968) research in which different attitude scales were employed, it would 201 appear that the problem lies primarily in the change orien— tation questions themselves rather than in the criterion instruments. Two solutions suggest themselves: (a) the change orientation questions should be revised so that they measure the same theoretical variable in a more consistent fashion, or (b) they should be treated independently in future re- search efforts, with each being related to the dependent variable in a straightforward correlational analysis. Relating Attitudes to Opinions on Educational Aid and Planning These variables, like the amount of education vari— able, were primarily related to attitudes only at the more abstract and impersonal levels of attitude. As with the education variable, negative relationships appeared on the stereotype and normative levels for the total sample, where attitudes are attributed to others, and positive re— lationships appeared on the moral evaluative and hypo— thetical behavior levels, where attitudes are attributed to the self. Only among the special education teachers of the retarded, who were intimately familiar with both education and the retarded, did these variables predict attitudes at the feeling and behavior levels. It may be that educational aid and planning is simply not a signi— ficant predictor among the other German groups sampled because of their lack of intimate familiarity with prob— lems inherent in the education of the retarded. 202 Relating Attitudes and Group Membership If the ABS—MR scale level mean scores presented in Table 3 (Chapter III) for the standardization groups are compared to the mean scores of German samples presented in Table 22 (Chapter V), an interesting pattern emerges. For the standardization groups, the following rank or— dering of scale level mean scores occurred in each case: scale level l<2<3>4>5>6. This pattern also emerged in three of the five German groups while in the remaining two groups, the two groups of parents, one reversal oc- curred from this ordering in each case. Thus, the fact that only two order reversals occurred in a total of 48 mean scores would seem to provide strong evidence that the ABS—MR is measuring essentially the same dimensions of attitudes across cultures and it will be interesting to note whether this pattern continues to hold for the re— maining countries and cultural groups participating in the international study. A semantic translation of this pattern of scores would be as follows: the subjects perceive other people comparing the retarded to non-retarded rather unfavorably (Societal Stereotype); what other people think is usually right or wrong behavior toward the retarded (Societal Interactive Norm) is perceived somewhat more favorably by the subject; the most favorable perception is with re— gard to how the subjects themselves feel other people should 203 behave toward the retarded (Personal Moral Evaluation); somewhat less favorably perceived are the subjects' pnn probable behaviors toward the retarded (Personal Hypo— thetical Behavior); still less favorable to the retarded are the affects the subjects experience in connection with this group (Personal Feelings); and, finally, even less favorable are the subjects' reported behavioral interactions with the retarded. In short, the most favorable attitudes expressed toward the retarded are with regard to how other people should behave toward this group and how the subject thinks he himself E2219 behave, while the least favorable attitudes are expressed with regard to how both others and the self actually feel about and behave toward this group. As was previously pointed out, the total ABS—MR scores are relatively meaningless since they may not reflect even striking differences between groups on the individual scale levels. This was particularly the case with the parents of normals and the special teachers where it was found that the former group scored highest on levels 1 and 2 and lowest on 3 and 4, while the latter group scored lowest on 1 and 2 and highest on 3 and 4. Thus, the group most likely to be objectively knowledgeable and interested in the retarded, the teachers of mildly re— tarded, obtained the lowest scores on the stereotypic and normative levels while the group most likely to be naive in 204 this regard, the parents of normals, scored highest on these two levels. In fact, all of the groups scored sig— nificantly higher than the special teachers on level 1, while only the regular teachers failed to score signifi- cantly higher than this group on level 2. It may be con— cluded that the special teachers, the group perhaps most objectively knowledgeable about the attitudes of others toward the retarded, perceived these attitudes as being more unfavorable than did any other group. Even the parents of retarded attributed more favorable attitudes to others than did the special teachers and it is hard to resist the interpretation of perhaps some denial of reality on the part of these parents.“ The parents of retarded and special teachers scored generally close together and higher than the other groups on ABS—MR scale levels 4, 5, and 6 (hypothetical behavior, feelings, and actual behavior) where the attitudes being expressed were more personal and concrete. The regular teachers were in the middle range of scores on levels 3—6, but like the special teachers, these teachers of normal children perceived the attitudes of others, being ”Table 29 in Appendix D seems to provide some fur— ther evidence for denial on the part of these parents in that, with the exception of the manager—executives, these parents of retarded children scored lower than any other group on the amount—of—contact with mentally retarded per— sons variable. On the other hand, these parents obtained a mean score on the enjoyment—of-contact variable second only to the special teachers, and it will be noted that mean scores on this variable assumed the ordering pre— dicted for ABS-MR attitudes in Hypotheses l4 and 16. 205 expressed on levels 1 and 2, as being unfavorable in com- parison to the perceptions of the other groups. The manager—executives scored uniformly low on the more per— sonal and concrete levels 4—6, and like the parents of normals, this group achieved its best position relative to the other groups on the more abstract and impersonal levels 1 and 2. It will be recalled that amount and enjoyment of contact with the retarded, while significantly negatively related to attitudes on the stereotypic and normative levels, were both found to be significantly positively related to the remaining ABS-MR levels. In addition, the two groups having the most actual contact with the retarded, i.e., the parents of moderately retarded and the teachers of mildly retarded, also scored highest on the more con— crete and personal dimensions of attitudes. While it is obvious that a number of other uncontrolled and confounding selection factors were likely influencing the contact— attitude relationship, nevertheless, a worthwhile future research effort would be to provide the opportunity for enjoyable contacts with the retarded, perhaps through institutional tours, work—study programs, etc., to deter— mine if increasing contact with the retarded would be re— flected in more favorable attitudes on the affective and behavior levels in groups similar to the manager—executives, whose degree of acceptance of the retarded can be a crucial 206 factor in the latter's vocational adjustment and general well being. Relating Attitudes and Multidimensionality The difference between how the German subjects per— ceived the attitudes of others toward the retarded, ex- pressed on ABS—MR scale levels 1 and 2, and how they per— ceived their own attitudes, expressed on levels 3—6, has been discussed in connection with a number of variables. Negative correlations between either level 1 or 2 and various combinations of the rest of the scales appeared in all of the scale level correlation matrices in Table 23 (Chapter V), and these negative correlations were felt to constitute a sufficient threat to validity for the special educator and total German sample matrices that a simplex could not be considered to have been approximated .n either case. The negative correlations appearing in he matrix for the total sample provide some further sup— ort for the suggestion that perhaps the stereotyped View f the authoritarian German personality will have to be z—examined. At the very least, it would appear that the *rman population sampled in the present research did not rceive their own attitudes toward the retarded as being seriously affected by their perceptions of the attitudes others as was true of the U.S. and Belize groups em— yed in the ABS—MR standardization. 207 For three of the remaining German groups, i.e., the éegular teachers and the two parent groups, a simplex was zonsidered approximated, as predicted by Guttman's (1959) Sontiguity Hypothesis. Thus, some support has been ob- tained for the proposition that there exists an invariate structure of attitudes toward the mentally retarded across cultures. This proposition is further supported by the pattern of relative scale level scores which has emerged in the U.S., Belize, and German groups discussed in the last section, i.e., scores on scale level l<2<3>4>5>6. An interesting pattern which emerges in the German iata is that in each of the sample group matrices ABS—MR -evel 4 is more strongly correlated with level 6 than is .evel 5. For the German populations sampled, therefore, fypothetical Behavior, or how the subject says he would ehave toward the retarded is a better predictor of his eported Actual Behavior than are the Personal Feelings 3 experiences toward the retarded. This finding seems to 3 in keeping with the traditional notion of the German ving maximum value to intellectual and technological rsuits while minimizing emotional factors. At any rate, would appear that what the Germans in the present re— chh say they would do in respect to the retarded is a ter predictor of their behavior than the way they feel at the latter. A similar finding was noted for the Lze group of teachers (see Chapter 111, Table 3 and 208 éelated discussion) and this was in contrast to the two 1.8. samples where level 5 was more strongly correlated with level 6 than was level 4. Collation of data from the remaining countries and cultures participating in the larger international study should reveal whether feelings provide the best prediction of behavior toward the retarded only in the United States populations sampled. The limitations of the simplex approximation test devised by Kaiser (1962) and used in the present research have been well documented. These limitations, briefly, revolved around the procedure's apparent inability to pro— iuce a perfect simplex criterion from the existing data, the lack of a frequency distribution and test of signifi— :ance for the p2 statistic, and the test's failure to aasily and reasonably handle non—positive correlations 1ppearing in the matrices. The first limitation cited ould perhaps be avoided by generating a Q2 value for atrices intuitively and subjectively re—ordered into the est possible simplex ordering, as was done with the data 1 Table 6 in Chapter V, and using the p2 value obtained 'om this matrix as a criterion by which to evaluate the value obtained from the original, unrearranged matrix. 3 second and third limitations seem likely to require :h more complex solutions. While Kaiser's (1962) pro— ure appears to be the best available at the present time, is clear that it is of limited value in the present type “esearch. 209 Relating Attitudes and Additional Group Variables The special characteristics of the German samples facilitated the testing of several hypotheses specific to this research. It was found, for example, that parents of moderately retarded children attending the Max—Wittmann special school in Dortmund had more favorable attitudes toward the mentally retarded on the hypothetical and actual behavior levels of the ABS—MR than did a similar group of parents whose children were awaiting admittance to the same school. While it would be gratifying to conclude that this difference was a direct result of the school's influence, 1 at least two cautions are in order. First, the group of parents whose children were not yet admitted to the special school in question may not have been adequately represented y the 40% of these parents who responded to a mail survey. Secondly, it is not known to what extent a possible age iifferential in the groups influenced the results. Age vas shown to be positively related to attitudes at the more :oncrete and personal ABS-MR levels and it is not unreason— 1ble to assume that both the children attending this school, s well as their parents, were older than those not attending nd their parents. Nevertheless, the possibility that such chooling could influence parental attitudes on these levels 8 an intriguing one and could be the object of future re- earch efforts incorporating additional controls. 210 The length of time a parent's moderately retarded child had been attending the Max—Wittmann school was found to be negatively related to attitudes on the moral evalu— ation and hypothetical behavior ABS-MR levels, and posi— tively on the actual behavior level. These findings sug— gest that the duration of special education for these children is related to decreasing parental expectations of the behavior of both others and themselves, which is con— current with more positive and pleasurable behavioral in— teractions with the retarded. It may be, therefore, that increasing time in school resulted in lower and perhaps more realistic expectations for these parents and more acceptance of the retarded in general, and perhaps their own children specifically, on the behavioral level. Once again, age and other possible confounding variables could be better controlled in future efforts. The predicted differences between experienced and inexperienced special educators and regular teachers did not emerge in a consistent fashion other than on the be- havioral level where the experienced groups, by definition, would have had more opportunity for behavioral inter- actions with the retarded. A re-test of the inexperienced special educators after a years further experience is pre— sently in progress and may shed some additional light on this factor which does not appear to be strongly related to attitudes in the German populations sampled. 211 Since the German language does not provide a general term equivalent to the English ”mental retardation,"5 but provides instead terms for more specific levels of retar— dation, it had been hypothesized that those subjects most familiar with the less socially disabling mild form of retardation would express more favorable attitudes toward the retarded in general than those primarily familiar with the moderately and/or severely retarded. The hypothesis was completely unsupported and most of the differences which emerged were accounted for by the eight people who said they were most familiar with the severely retarded. Because of the extremely small number of people who chose this alternative, even the findings for this group are suspect, although statistically significant, until repli— cated. Otherwise, the level of retardation with which the subjects were most knowledgeable about and familiar with did not seem to be related to their attitudes toward the mentally retarded in general. Recommendations for Further Research A number of shortcomings in the present research have become evident by now and an attempt has been made through— out the body of this thesis to list several of these while at the same time providing suggestions as to how future researchers might avoid certain pitfalls while extending 5The term Intelligenzbehindert was finally decided on as equivalent, and literally means "handicapped in intelli— gence." 212 research in this area. The final section, therefore, will summarize some of the implications for future research arising from this study. Criterion Instrumentation The position has been taken in the present research that the systematic construction of an attitude scale ac— cording to the principles of facet theory provides the most efficient means of controlling the numerous content, structure, and intensity dimensions of attitudes summarized in Chapter II from Duijker (1955). The ABS—MR was appar— ently the first attitude scale whose construction was guided by a facet design and some of the following sug— gestions gained through experience with this instrument 1have already been incorporated in studies by Erb (1969), Hamersma (1969), and Maierle (1969). 1. Response sets sould be discouraged in similar instruments by randomly varying from question to question the most favorable or positive response alternative. 2. Future ABS—MR content and intensity scores hould be combined into one score for each item in the ain analysis to increase instrument reliability and dis— rimination and to make scores on level 6 more comparable 0 those on levels 1—5. 3. Total scores on the ABS—MR should be carefully valuated and perhaps disregarded in future research since 213 the present study demonstrated that similar total scores may be made up of strikingly different scale level scores. 4. Disjoint struction should be better controlled in future instruments, with perhaps the same item content appearing on all levels as Hamersma (1969) has suggested. 5. A reduction of scale length in future instru— ments would permit the desirable incorporation of alter— native conjoint struction permutations suggested by Maierle (1969). Independent Variable Instrumentation It has become apparent in the present research that a real need exists for more adequate predictor variables. Undoubtedly such variables exist in the form of the many psychological tests available today, and some of these, interest inventories and scales of values for example, ould perhaps be profitably incorporated into future at— itude studies. The independent variables used in the resent research appeared to be particularly inadequate orrelates of attitudes on the more concrete and personal BS—MR attitude dimensions. A thorough revision of the ersonal Questionnaire containing the independent vari— bles used in this study is indicated, and the following uggestions are in order: 1. The content and intensity scores on the Effi— acy scale should be combined into one score, similar to 214 he manner in which ABS—MR content—intensity scores were ombined in the present study, in an effort to increase ts predictive ability. 2. All of the questions in the Mental Retardation nowledge scale should be scored in future research, or, t the very least, the seven questions in this scale used I the present research should be cross validated in each Eltural group tested. 3. The series of Change Orientation questions should ther be revised so that they measure this theoretical riable in a more consistent fashion, or they should be 1alyzed separately and independently in their relation— .ip to the criterion in future research. 4. Certain of the demographic variable questions ould be revised, as Whitman (1970) has done, so that a re effective response continuum results for correlation th the criterion. 5. The religious variables employed in this re- chh should be further analyzed by denominational sect future efforts. ss—Cultural Aspects That several of the statistically significant corre— Lonal findings in the present study emerged primarily the total sample attests to the within—group homo— ity and between—group differences on a number of 215 variables for the German samples,6 which in turn may be cited as evidence for the adequacy and representativeness of these samples since they were chosen from populations on the basis of these presumed characteristics. Even so, a number of special characteristics of these samples were cited which seriously limit the generalizability of the obtained findings even to the whole of these specific German populations, not to mention the German nation as a whole. The other crucial cross-cultural aspects which emerged in the present research were in instrument trans— lation and general logistical problems. The following suggestions, therefore, seem appropriate: 1. Efforts should be made in future cross-cultural studies to secure more representative and externally valid samples. 2. Knowledge about local circumstances and intimate familiarity with the local language is mandatory in solving ranslation, sampling, and logistical problems in cross— ultural research, and the assistance of competent social cientists in each country is indispensable. nal sis The data in the present research were analyzed by omputer and, in general, it is felt that both the instru— ent and programming errors described in Chapter V, which bviated the complete testing of several hypotheses and 6See Table 29, Appendix D. 216 cesulted in numerous unnecessary delays, could be avoided in future efforts by meticulously careful advance planning and programming. More specifically, the following recom— nendations have grown out of experience gained in this study. 1. A two—way analysis of variance procedure should be employed in future studies using the ABS—MR as a cri- terion to analyze group—scale level interactions. 2. A more adequate and rigorous simplex approxima— tion statistic with a test of significance is needed. 3. If the simplex approximation test used in the present study is employed in future efforts, subjective ordering of the obtained data will produce a perfect sim— plex criterion 02 value by which to evaluate the p2 value obtained for the original matrix. Hypotheses A number of unexpected findings have emerged in the German data which could readily be tested in hypothesis form in the remaining countries and/or cultures scheduled :o participate in the larger international study, described Ln Chapter I, to determine whether these findings are generalizable across cultures or whether, on the other land, they are atypical and characteristic only of the Ferman groups tested. Similarly, several of the hypotheses ould be replicated within Germany itself to better assess 217 the generalizability of findings within that nation. Accordingly, some suggested hypotheses for future research are as follows: 1. Amount and enjoyment of contact with the mentally retarded will be negatively related to attitudes on ABS—MR scale levels 1 and 2, and positively on levels 3—6. 2. Amount of education will be primarily related to ABS—MR attitudes on the more abstract levels 1-3. 3. Age will be primarily related to ABS—MR atti— tudes on the more concrete and personal levels 4—6. 4. Special education—rehabilitation personnel will score lowest on ABS—MR levels 1 and 2 and highest on levels 3 and 4, while the most naive group will score highest on 1 and 2 and lowest on 3 and 4. 5. The ABS—MR scale level scores obtained for each group tested will assume the following order: l<2<3>4>5>6. It was shown in Chapter III that the ABS—MR evolved irectly from Guttman's (1959) facet theory of attitude tructure. Facet theory and design imposes a sequential nd systematic semantic order on what would otherwise ften be a series of disparate and seemingly unconnected sychological events. That a rather complex empirical ypothesis growing out of this semantic ordering, i.e., uttman's Contiguity Hypothesis, has been largely sup— orted by the data from several cultural groups attests 218 to the utility and fruitfulness of this approach to ordering psychological events and concepts on a descriptive level. The real weakness in the present research seems to lie pri— marily in the lack of adequate, coherent, and systematic theoretical underpinnings at the attitude causation level. In short, the attitude predictors, more so than the cri— terion, were largely inadequate in this research. Aside from the obvious global need for improved social—psychol— 1ogical theory in general, two more specific and final recommendations follow: 1. A way should be found to theoretically incorpo— rate the occurrence of negative relationships between various levels of an attitude universe. 2. Facet theory and design facilitates the connec— tion between abstract theory and empirical observation and should be incorporated into a variety of social—psychological 1 research efforts. REFERENCES REFERENCES lan, W. S. On hiring the handicapped: The heart of the problem. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1962, 28 (2), 19~20. astasi, A. Psychological testin (2nd ed. ). New York: Macmillan, 1961. ders, A. F., & Dayan, M. Variables related to child— rearing attitudes among attendants in an institu— tional setting. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 848- 851. pel, M. J., Williams, C. M., & Fishell, K. N. Changes in attitudes of parents of retarded children effected through group counseling. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 68, 807—812. dt, M. Attitudes of university students toward excep— tional children and special education, Exceptional Children, 1957, 23, 286—289, 336. rclay, A., & Vaught, G. Maternal estimates of future achievement in cerebral palsied children as a func— tion of age, sex, and degree of handicap. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 69, 62—65. ker, R. G., Wright, B. A., Myerson, L., & Gonick, M. R. Adjustment to physical handicaps and illness. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1953. rett, A. M., Relos, R., & Eisele, J. Vocational success and attitudes of mentally retarded toward work and money. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 102—107. tide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interracial behavior in San Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689—694. inkoff, C. Community attitudes toward mental retarda— tion. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 221—226. 221 Berreman, J. V. Some implications of research in the social psychology of physical disability. Exceptional Children, 1954, 20, 3A7—350. Bitter, J. A. Attitude change by parents of trainable retarded children as a result of group discussion. Exceptional Children, 1963, 30, 173—177. 31att, B. The mentally retarded. Rehabilitation Record, 1961, 2, 9—25. Caldwell, B. M., & Guze, S. B. A study of the adjustment of parents and siblings of institutionalized and non- institutionalized retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 64, 835—861. Clark, E. T. Children's perception of educable mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1964, 68, 602—611(a). Clark, E. T. Children‘s perception of a special class for educable mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 196A, 30, 289—295(b). Cleland, C. C., & Chambers, W. R. Experimental modifica— tion of attitudes as a function of an institutional tour. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, l2U—130. Cleland, C. C., & Cochran, S. L. The effect of institu— tional tours on attitudes of high school seniors. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65, 473-879.‘ ohen, J. S. Employer attitudes toward hiring mentally retarded individuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 67, 705-713- ondell, J. F. Parental attitudes toward mental retarda— tion. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 85-92. onnor, F. P., & Goldberg, I. 1. Opinions of some teachers regarding their work with trainable children: Implications for teacher education. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 658—670. iMichael, S. G. Vocational rehabilitation for the mentally retarded. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1953, 31, U28—A32. 222 ;ngman, H. F., Eyman, R. K., & Windle, C. D. An inves— tigation of some child-rearing attitudes of mothers with retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963, 899—908. >11, K. L., & Darley, F. L. Attitudes of mothers of articulatory—impaired and speech retarded children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1960, 25, 377-384. 1bois, P. H. An introduction to psychological statistics. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. 1ijker, H. C. J. Comparative research in social science with special reference to attitude research. International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7, 555-566T 1wards, A. L. Experimental design in psychological research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 66. 19 11ers, W. H. The moderately and severely retarded child: Maternal perceptions of retardation and subsequent seeking and using services rendered by a community agency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196A, 68, 660—668. ‘b, D. L. Racial attitudes and empathy: A Guttman facet theory examination of their relationships and de— terminants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. lty, J. E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. a, U. G. The contiguity principle in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human Relations, 1958, 11, 229-238. , U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of common— alities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220—226. ce, D. G. Social status of physically handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 1956, 23, 104—107, 132. 223 then, D. Die Ausbildung des 1ernbehinderten Kindes in der Sonderschule. In C. Dierkes (Ed.) Schulaus— bildung fuer behinderte Kinder. Bonn, Germany: MEFA G mb H, 1967, pp. 68—73. rdon, E. W., & Ullman, M. Reactions of parents to problems of mental retardation in children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 61, 158—1 3. ttlieb, K. R. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward mental retardation in Colombia: Content, structure and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. wman, A. G. The war blind in American social structure. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1957. eenbaum, J. J., & Wang, D. D. A semantic—differential study of the concepts of mental retardation. Journal of General Psychology, 1965, 73, 257—272. nzburg, H. C. Vocational and social rehabilitation of the feebleminded, In A. M. and A. D. B. Clarke (Eds.) Mental Deficienc : The chan in outlook. Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1958, pp. 335—364. thrie, G. M., Butler, A., & Gorlow, L. Patterns of self—attitudes of retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 222—229. hrie, G. M., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., & White, G. N. Non-verbal expressions of self—attitudes of retardates, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 196M, A2—A9. tman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure— ment. In S. A. Stauffer (Ed.) Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. tman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action. American Sociological Review, 1959, 2A, 318—328. tman, L. The structuring of sociological spaces. Technical Note No. 3, 1961, Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Contract No. AF 61 (052)— 121, United States Air Force. tman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrices. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.) Handbook of multivariate experi— mental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966, pp. A38—AS8. 224 .ttman, L. & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an intergroup attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, Spring, l43-53. ,good, M. J., & Price, D. 0. Statistics for sociologists (Rev. ed.). New York: Holt, 1952. .mersma, R. J. Construction of an attitude—behavior scale of Negroes and Whites toward each other using Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished dogtoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 19 9. ,ring, N. G., Stein, G. G., & Cruickshank, W. M. Attitudes of educators toward exceptional children. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1958. .rris, L. M. Exploring the relationship between the teacher's attitudes and the overt behavior of the pupil: Case study of an aggressive girl. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 60, 536—5 . .rris, L. M. Exploring the relationship between the teacher's attitude and the overt behavior of the pupil. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1958, 63, 260—267. .rtlage, L. C. Factors affecting employer receptivity toward the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 108—113. ater, W. H. Attitudes of Michigan clergymen toward mental retardation and toward education: Their nature and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. rowitz, F., & Lovell, L. Attitudes of mothers of female schizophrenics. Child Development, 1960, 31, 299-303- yt, C. J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. In W. Mehrens and R. Ebel (Eds.) Principles of educational and psychological measure- ment. Chicago: Rand, McNally, 1967, pp. 108—115. :t, M. G., & Gibby, R. G. The mentally retarded child: development, education and treatment. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965. 225 Hylla, E. J., & Kegel, F. 0. Education in Germany: An introduction for foreigners (2nd ed.). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Hochschule fuer Internationale Paedagogische Forschung, 1958. International Bureau of Education. Organization of special education for mentally deficient children. Geneva, Switzerland: Author, 1960, pp. 134—138. Jaffe, J. Attitudes of adolescents toward the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 70, 907-912. Jaffe, J. ”What's in a name”-—Attitudes toward disabled persons. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 557—560. Johnson, J. J., & Ferreira, J. R. School attitudes of children in special classes for mentally retarded. California Journal of Educational Research, 1958, 9, 33—37. Jordan, J. E. Attitudes toward education and physically disabled persons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin America Studies Center, Michigan State University, 1968. Jordan, J. E. Guttman facet design and development of a cross—cultural attitude toward mentally retarded persons scale. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969, available from author. Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kelly, H. H., Hastorf, A. H., Jones, E. E., Thibaut, J. W., & Usdane, W. M. Some implications of social psy— chological theory for research on the handicapped. In L. H. Lofquist (Ed.), Psyphological research and rehabilitation. Washington, D. 0.: American Psycho- logical Association, 1960, pp. 172—204. Kenney, E. T. Mother—retarded child relationships. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 631—636. Kerlinger, F. N. 'Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966: -..» JF‘L‘ EW1_~__..‘.M . A 226 Kimbrell, D. L., & Luckey, R. E. Attitude change resulting from open house guided tours in a state school for mental retardates. American Journal of Mental Defi— ciency, 196A, 69, 21—23. Kirk, S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston: Houghton—Mifflin, 1962, pp. 116—117. Kniss, J. T., Butler, A., Gorlow, L., & Guthrie, G. M. Ideal self patterns of female retardates. American Journal of Mental Deficieney, 1962, 67, 2A5—2E9. Kramer, C. Y. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Bio— metrics, 1956, 12, 307-310. Kuder, G. F., and Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 151—160. Laing, A. F., & Chazan, M. Sociometric groupings among educationally subnormal children. American Journal of Mental Deficieney, 1966, 71, 73—77. Levine, S. Sex role identification and parental perception of social competence. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 70, 822—823. Lingoes, J. C. An IBM 7090 program for the Guttman- Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis — I. Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 76—78. Mahoney, S. C., & Pangrae, I. Misconceptions of college students about mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficieney, 1960, 6“, 671—678. Maierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969- McAfee, R. 0., & Cleland, C. C. The discrepancy between self—concept and ideal self as a measure of psycho- logical adjustment in educable retarded males. 2merican Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 3—681 McCoy, G. F. Some ego factors associated with academic success and failure of educable mentally retarded pupils. Exceptional Children, 1963, 30, 80—8U. 227 Mendelsohn, H. A sociological approach to certain aspects of mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 195A, 58, 506—510. Mercer, J. R. Patterns of family crises related to re— acceptance of the retardate. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 19—32. Meyerowitz, J. H. Self—derogations in young retardates and special class placement. Child Development, 1962, 33, AA3—A51. Meyerowitz, J. H. Parental awareness of retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 637—6A3. Meyers, C. E., Sitkei, E. G., & Watts, C. A. Attitudes toward special education and the handicapped in two community groups. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 78—89. Miller, R. V. Social status and socioempathic differences among mentally superior, mentally typical and mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 1956, 23, 114—119. Moreno, J. L. Who shall survive (1st Ed.). Washington, D. C.: Nervous and Mental Disorders Publishing Company, 1934. Morin, K. N. Attitudes of Texas Mexican—Americans toward mental retardation: A Guttman facet theory analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Mukherjee, B. N. Derivations of liklihood—ratio tests for Guttman quasisimplex covariance structures. Psycho— metrika, 1966, 31, 97-123. Mutters, T. Schulausbildung fuer geistig behinderte Kinder. In C. Dierkes (Ed.) Schulausbildung fuer behinderte Kinder- Bonn, Germany: MEFA Gmb H, 1967, pp. 62-67, ffice of Evaluation Services. Item analysis program. Michigan State University, 1965. 1shansky, S., & Schonfield, J. Parental perceptions of the mental status of graduates of special classes. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3, 5, 16—20. 228 Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The measuremept of meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Peck, J. R., & Stephens, W. B. A study of the relation— ship between the attitudes and behavior of patients and that of their mentally defective child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 839—844. Peckham, R. A. Problems in job adjustment of the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1951, 56, 448—453. Phelps, W. R. Attitudes related to the employment of the mentally retarded. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 69, 575-585. Polansky, D. Beliefs and opinions concerning mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 66, 12-17. Proctor. D. I. An investigation of the relationships be— tween knowledge of exceptional children, kind and amount of experience, and attitudes toward their classroom integration. Unpublished doctoral disser— tation, Michigan State University, 1967. Rosen, L. Selected aspects in the development of the mother's understanding of her mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1 19553 593 522—53. .Ruble, W. L., & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic statis— tics when missing data is involved (The MD—STAT routine). Stat. Series Description No. 6, Agricul— tural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Stat. Series Description No. 7, Agricul— tural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (a) Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., & Rafter, M. E. One way analysis of variance with unequal number of replications per— mitted (UNEQI routine). Stat. Series Description No. 13, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (b) 229 Ruble, W. L., Paulson, S. J., & Rafter, M. E. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance with unequal frequenciesepermitted in the ce11-—no interaction effects. (LS routine-~temporary). Stat. Series Description No. 115, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 196 . Salkind, I. Changing employers’ attitudes toward the psychologically handicapped. Journal of Rehabili— tation, 1962, 28 (3), 26-27. Schonell, F. S., & Watts, F. F. A first survey of the effects of a subnormal child on the family unit. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1956, 61, 210—219. A second survey of the Schonell, F. J., & Rorke, M. effects of a subnormal child on the family unit. American Journal of Mental Deficienqy, 1959, 63, Teacher attitudes and information per- Semmel, M. I. taining to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficieney, 1959, 63, 566-574. Sellin, D., & Mulchahay, R. The relationship of an insti— tutional tour upon opinions about mental retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1965, 70, 408-412. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for measurement of McGraw—Hill, 1967. attitudes. New York: Simmons, J. S. Social integration of preschool children having hearing problems. Sociology and Social Research, 1955, 40, 99—101. Smith, J. R., & Hurst, J. G. The relationship of motor abilities and peer acceptance of mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency. 1961, 66, 81—85. self attitudes, Snyder, R. T. Personality adjustment, and anxiety differences in retarded adolescents. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1966, 71, 33-41. SOldwedel, B., & Terril, I. Sociometric aspects of phySically handicapped and non—handicapped children in the same elementary school. Exceptional Children, 1957, 23, 371—372, 381-383. 230 Stoddard, H. M. The reaction of parental attitudes and the achievements of severely mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959’ 633 575—598. Stubblefield, H. W. Religion, parents and mental retarda— tion. Mental Retardation, 1965, 3, 4, 8—11. Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.) Measure— ment and prediction. Princeton: Princeton Univer— sity Press, 1950. Suchman, E. A. The comparative method in social research. Rural Sociology, 1964, 29 (2), 123—137. Tenny, J. W. The minority status of the handicapped. Exceptional Children, 1953, 19, 260—264. Thurston, J. R. A procedure for evaluating parental attitudes toward the handicapped. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 64, 14 —155. Thurston, J. R. Attitudes and emotional reactions of parents of institutionalized cerebral palsied, retarded patients. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1960, 65, 227—235. Vormfelde, E. Die Max—Wittman—Schule. Dortmund, Germany: Max-Wittman—Schule, 1969. Ward, J. H., Jr. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (Ed.) Computer applications in the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1962. Whitman, R. M. Attitudes of psychiatric patients toward the mentally ill: A Guttman facet theory analysis of their content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Winer, B. J. Structural principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962. Winthrop, H., & Taylor, H. An inquiry concerning the pre— valence of pOpular misconceptions relating to mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1957, 62, 344—348. 231 Construction of descriptive and attitude In T. Husen (Ed.) International study of Wolf, R. M. New York: John Wiley scales. achieyement in mathematics. & Sons, 1967, pp. 109—122. Worchel, T. L., & Worchel, P. The parental concept of the mentally retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1961, 65, 782—788. Wright, B. A. Physical disability——a psychological approach. New York: Harper & Bros., 1960. The parental Oltena, M., & Monashkin, 1. Journal of Zuckerman, M., attitudes of mothers of schizophrenics. Consulting Psychology, 1958, 22, 307—310. Zuk, G. H. The religious factor and the role of guilt in parental acceptance of the retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959, 64, 139—1 7. :3... ..l ...-Gnu!!! “(1.. 5mm. . ML ...4.-. . .m.i-. I... APPENDICES 232 APPENDIX A.1 1.} ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS-MR .f MR‘ANS : UOS .8 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE-~MR DIRECTIONS This booklet contains statments of how people feel about certain things. In this section you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other eo 1e believe that mentally retarded people compare to people who are not retarded. Here is a sample statment. Sggple 1. ' i 1. Chance of being blue-eyed (:) less chance 2. about the same 3. more chance If other people believe that mentally retarded people have less chance than most people to have blue eyes, you should circle the number 1 ._____. ____________________ as shown above. If other people believe the mentally retarded have more chance to have blue eyes, you should circle the number 3 as shown below. .______.___________. 1. Chance of being blue-eyed 1. less chance 2. about the same \8. more chance After each statement there will also be a question asking you to state how certain or sure ou were of our answer. Suppose you answered the sample question about "blue eyes” by marking about the same. Next you should then indicate how sure you were of this answer. If you felt sure of this answer, you should circ h b r 3 as shown below in Sample 2. Em. 1. Chance of being blue-eyed 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less chance 1. not sure .2 about the same ‘3. fairly sure . - 3. more chance .8) sure \\ by: John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University 3968 MR-ANS: U.S. -2- ABS-I-MR Directions: Section I In the statements that follow you are to circle the number that indicates how other people compare mentally retarded persons to those who are not mentally retarded, and then to state how sure you felt about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions, and not sure of their answers to other questions. It is ipportant to anepep all questionsI even though you may have to guess at the answers to sqpe of them. Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded as compared to those who are not retarded: 1. Energy and vitality {E—-'-§’ 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less energetic 1. not sure ;. 2. about the sane 2. fairly sure '.. 3. more energetic 3. sure ' 3. Ability to do school work 4. How sure are you of this answer? I 1. less ability 1. not sure ‘ 2. about the same 2. fairly sure ; 3. more ability 3. sure 5. Memory 6. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not as good 1. not sure 2. same 2. fairly sure 3. better 3. sure . . ' 7 7. Interested in unusual sex practices 8. How sure are you of this answer. 1. more interested 1. not sure ‘ 2. about the same 2. fairly sure . 3. less interested 3. sure 9. Can maintain a good marriage 10. How Sure are you of this answer? 1. less able 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more able 3. sure 11. Will have too many children 12. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more than most 1. not sure 2. ab0ut the same 2. fairly Sure 3. less than most 3. sure 3968 MRsANS: U98. -3- ABS-I-MR cher people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded as compared to those who are not mentally retarded: 13. Faithful t0 spouse 14. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less faithful 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more faithful 3. sure 15. Will take care of his children 16. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less than most 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. better than most 3. sure 17. Likely to obey the law 18. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less likely I. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more likely 3. sure 19. Does steady and dependable work 20. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less likely 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more likely 3. sure 1 21. Works hard 22. How sure are you of this answer? : 1. not as much 1. not sure - 2. about the same 2. fairly sure E 3. more than most 3. sure I 23. Makes plans for the future 24. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not as likely 1- not sure 5 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more likely 3. sure 25. Prefers to have fun now rather 26. How sure are you Of this answer? 3968 than to work for the future 1. more so than most people 2. about the same 3. less so than most pe0P18 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure J45; MR-ANS 5 U08 0 -4- ABS-I-MR Other people generally believe the following things about the mentally retarded as compared to those who are not retarded: 27. Likely to be cruel to others 28. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more likely I. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less likely 3. sure 29. Mentally retarded are sexually 30. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more loose than others 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less loose than others 3. sure 31. Amount of initiative 32. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less than others 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more than others 3. sure 33. Financial self-support 34. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less able than others 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more able than others 3. sure 35. Mentally retarded prefer 36. How sure are you of this answer? 1. to be by themselves 1. not sure 2. to be only with normal people 2. fairly sure 3. to be with all people equally 3. sure 37' Compared to others, education 38. How sure are you of this answer? : of the mentally retarded 1. is not very important 1- “0'5 sure 2. is of uncertain importance 2. fairly sure 3. is an important social goal 3. sure 39. Strictness of rules for 40. How sure are you of this answer? mentally retarded 1. must be more strict 1- “0t sure 2. about the same 2, fairly sure 3. need less strict rules 3- sure 3968 MR‘ANS : Ue.'s. ABS-II-MR Directions: Section II This section contains statements of ways in which other people sometimes act toward people. You are asked to indicate for each of these statements what other people generally believe about interacting with the mentally retarded in such ways. You should then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other peoplg_generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 41. To play on the school playground 42. How sure are you of this answer? with other children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3' 3. usually approved 3. Sure i 43. To visit in the homes of other 44. How sure are you of this answer? ‘ children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. usually undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 45. To go on camping trips with other 46. How sure are you of this answer? children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure . 47. To be provided with simple 48. How sure are you of this answer? tasks since they can learn very little 1. usually believed I. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. not usually believed 3. sure 7 49. To stay overnight at the homes 50. How sure are you of this answer. of children who are not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 1- “Ot sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 3968 ~6- ABS-II-MR Other peoplg generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 51. 53. 55. 57. 59. 61 63. To go to parties with other children who are not mentally retarded . usually not approved undecided usually approved. 1 2 3 To be hired for a job only if there are no qualified non-men- tally retarded people seeking the job 1. 2. 3. usually approved undecided usually not approved To live in the same neighbor- hood with people who are not mentally retarded 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3 usually approved To date a person who is not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To go to the movies with someone who is not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To marry a person who is not mentally retarded I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved To be sterilized (males) 1. usually aPPIOVed 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 3968 52. 56. 58. 60. 62‘ 64. MRHANS: U33; How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3, sure How sure are you 1. not Sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -7- ABS-II-MR Other peoplg_generally believe that mentally retarded persons ought: 65. To be sterilized (females) 1. usually approved 2. not sure 3. usually not approved 67. To be desirable as friends 1. not usually approved 2. not Sure 3. usually approved 69. To be regarded as having sex appeal 1. not usually so . not sure 3. usually so 71. To be regarded as dangerous usually so regarded not sure . notusually regarded so 1 2 3 73. To run machines that drill holes in objects 1 usually not approved 2. not sure 3. usually approved 75. To be trusted with money for personal expenses 1. not usually so 2. not sure 3. usually so 77. To work at jobs he can do even if he has almost no speech 1. not usually so 2. not sure 3. usually so 79. To be forced to totally provide for themselves 1. usual 2. not sure 3. not usual 3968 66. 68. 70. 72. 74. 76. 78. MR-ANS: U.SJ How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of this this this this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? -8- ABS-III-MR Directigns: Section III This section contains statments of the ”right" or "moral" way of act toward people. You are asked to indicate whether you yourself agr agree with each statement according to how you personally believe gp to behave toward mentally retarded persons. sure you feel about your answer. In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do ypp believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: _~—- 81. To take a mentally retarded child on a camping trips with normal children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 83 To permit a mentally retarded child to go to the movies with children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 85. To allow a mentally retarded child to visit overnight with a child who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 87. To take a mentally retarded child to a party with children who are not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 89. For the government to pay part Of the cost of elementary educa- tion for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 3968 82. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 84. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 86. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 88. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 90. How sure are you of this 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure You should then indie you on ate how answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? ing In respect to people who are mentall believe that it is usually right or -9- ABS-III-MR 91. For the government to pay the full 92. 93- For 95. 97. 99. 101. _— cost of elementary eduCation for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3 usually right the government to pay the full cost of a high school education for mentally retarded children 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right For the government to pay part of the medical costs related to the disability 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right For the government to pay all of the medical costs related to the disability 1. 2 3. usually wrong undecided usually right To be given money for food and clothing by the government 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To mix freely with people who are not mentally retarded at parties 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 3968 94. 96. 98. 100. 102. MR-ANS; 035. y retarded, do you usually wrong: How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure DIR-ANS; : U96 .' -10- ABS-III-MR In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you belieie that it is usually right or usually wrong: 103. To go on dates with someone 104. How sure are you of this answer? who is not mentally retarded 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 105. To go to the movies with 106. How sure are you of this answer? someone who is not mentally retarded I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 107. To marry someone who is not 108. How sure are you of this answer? ;} mentally retarded a 1. usually wrong 1. not sure I 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure ‘ 109. To be a soldier in the army 110. How sure are you of this answer? ‘ 1. usually wvong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 1 3. usually right 3. sure 111. To provide special laws for 112. How sure are you of this answer? their protection 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 1 113. To provide special help to get 114. How sure are you of this answer? around the city 1. usually wrong 1. “0t sure 2, not sure 2. fairly- sure 3. usually right 3. sure 115. To sterilize the mentally 116. How sure are you of this answer? retarded 1. uSually right 2. not sure 3. usually wrong 3968 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure “A S. . -11- m N O U.S. ABS-III-MR In respect to people who are mentally retarded, do you believe that it is. usually right or usually wrong: 117. To put all mentally retarded 118. How sure are you of this answer? in separate classes, away from normal children 1. usually right 1. not sure 2. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. usually wrong 3. sure 119. To reserve certain jobs for the 120. How sure are you of this answer? mentally retarded I. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 3968 MR—ANS : U-.S . -12- ABS-IV-MR Directions: Section IV ___—______. This section contains statments of ways in which people sometimes act toward other people. You are asked to indicate for each of these statments whether you personally would act toward mentally retarded people according to the statment. You should then indicate how sure you feel about this - answer. In respect to a mentally retarded person, would you: 121. Share a seat on a train for a 122. How sure are you of this answer? long trip 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure ' 123. Have such a person as a 124. How sure are you ofthis answer? fellow worker T- 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 125. Have such a person working 126. How sure are you of this answer? for you 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 127. Live in the next-door house 128. How sure are you of this answer? or apartment ' ‘ 1. no 1. not sure \ 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure , 129. Extend an invitation to 130. How sure are you of this an 9 a party at your house swer. 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 131. Accept a dinner invitation at 132 How sure are on ' of t his house y his answer? 1. no 1. net sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 3968 MR'ANS ; U.S.: ‘ 13- ABS-IV-MR In respect to a mentally retarded person, gguld you: 133. Go to the movies together 134. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 135 Go together on a date 136. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 137. Permit a son or daughter to 138. How sure are you of this answer? date this person 1. not sure . 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure ," 3. yes 3. sure - ' 139. Permit a son or daughter to 140. How sure are you of this answer? marry this person 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 141. Feel sexually comfortable 142. How sure are you of this answer? together ' 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure \ 3. yes 3. sure i 143. Enjoy working with the 144. How sure are you of this answer? mentally retarded 1 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2, fairly sure ‘ 3. yes 3. sure 1 \ 145. Enjoy working with the 146. How sure are you of th ‘ mentally retarded as much as is answer? other handicapped 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fair1y sure 3. yes 3. sure 147. Enjoy working with mentally 148. How sure are on f r?tarded who also have emotional y 0 this answer? problems 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 3968 #7 IIIIlIIIIIlI::::T________________———————-———-——————————————————————————————————————-——————r ‘ ' MR’ANS: U.S. -14- ABS-IV-MR In respect to a mentally retarded Person, w: 149. Hire the mentally retarded if you were an employer 150. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 151. Want the mentally retarded in 152. How sure are you of this answer? your class if you were a teacher 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 153. Require the mentally retarded 154. How sure are you of this answer? to be sterilized if you were in ' control 1. yes 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. no 3. sure . 155. Separate the mentally retarded 156. How sure are you of this answer? from the rest of society if you were in control 1. not sure 1. yes 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. n0' 3. sure 157. Believe that the care of the 158. How sure are you of this answe ? r. mentally retarded is an evidence of national social development 1. not sure 1. no 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 159. Provide, if you could, special 160. How sure are you of this a 9 nswer. classes for the mentally retarded in regular school 1. no 1. not sure 2. don't know 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure 3968 IlIIIIIIIIIIIIZI5__———————————————————————-----—————————————————————————______e__afir MR-ANS: U.S. Directions: Section V ...—______ This section contains statments of actual feelings that peOple may hold toward the mentally retarded. You are asked to indicate how XOu feel toward people who are menzally retarded compared to people who are 22E mentally retarded. You should then indicate howsureyou feel of your answer. How do on actuall feel toward persons who are mentally retarded compared to others who are not mentally retarded: 1. Disliking 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. more 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure i : 3. Fearful 4. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure .. 2. about the same 2. fairly sure ‘ " 3. less 3. sure 5. Horrified 6. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. more 2. about the same 2. fairly-sure 3. less 3. sure 7. Loathing 8- HO" sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure l. more 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 9_ Dismay 10. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 11. Hating 12. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 13. Revulsion 14' How sure are you Of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 3968 FIR-ANS: U.S. -16- w How do toward persons who are mentally retarded compared to others who are not mentally retarded: 15. Contemptful 16. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 17. Distaste 18. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 19. Sickened 20' H0" sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 21. Confused 22. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 23. Negative 24. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 25. At ease 26. How sure are you of this answer? 1. less 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more 3. sure 27. Restless 28. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 29. Uncomfortable 30. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 1. more 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. less 3. sure 3968 How do you actually feel t mentally retarded com mentally retarded: 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 3968 Relaxed 1. less 2. about the 3. more Tense l. more 2.. about the 3. less Bad 1. more 2. about the 3. less Calm 1. less 2. about the 3. more Happy 1. less 2. about the 3. more same same same same same -17- ABS-V-MR oward persons who are 32. 34. 36. 38. 40. pared to others who are not MR-ANS; u.s; sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure sure are you not sure fairly sure sure of of this this this this this answer? answer? answer? answer? answer? MR-ANS: U.Sy ~18- ABS-VI-MR Directions: Section VI This section contains statements of different kinds of actual experiences you have had with mentally retarded persons. If the statment applies to you, circle ye . If not, you should circle 22. Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded: 41. Shared a seat on a bus, train, 42. Has this experience been mostly or plane pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 43. Eaten at the same table together 44. Has this experience been mostly in a restaurant pleasant or unpleasant? " 1. no 1. no such experience !' 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 45. Lived in the same neighborhood 46. Has this experience been mostly % pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experiencev 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 47. Worked in the same place 48. Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no such experience 1. no 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 50. Has this experience been mostly 49. Had such a person as my boss pleasant or unpleasant? or employer 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 51. Worked to help such people 52. Has this experience been mostly without being paid for it pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 54. Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1 no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 1 3. yes 3. in between II A n1 naennr 53 Have acquaintance like this MR-ANS: U.S. -19- ABS-VI-MR Experiencqg_or contacts with the mentally retarded: 55. Have-good friends like this 56. Has this experience beaxmostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 57. Donated money, clothes, etc., 58. Has this experience been mostly for people like this pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 59. Have a husband(pr wife)like this 60 Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 4' 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 61. I am like this, myself 62. Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? . 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 63. My best friend is like this 64. Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant ‘ 65. Received pay for working with 66. Has this experience been mostly people like this pleasant or unpleasant? 1, yes 1. no such experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant : w 67. My children have played with 68. Has this experience been mostly 1 pleasant or unpleasant? children like this 1. no such experience 1. no 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 3968 i —i_- -20- ABS-VI-MR Experiences or contacts with the mentally retarded: 69. My children have attended school 70. Has this experience been mostly with children like this pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. uncertain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 71. Voted for extra taxes for their 72. Has this experience been mostly education pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. not certain 2. unpleasant . 3. yes 3. in between ' 4. pleasant ' 73. Worked to get jobs for them 74, Has this experience been mostly .. pleasant or unpleasant? ’ 1. no 1. no such experience 2. not certain 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between I 4. pleasant ‘ 75. Have you sexually enjoyed such 76. Has this experience been mostly people pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience 2. no answer 2. unpleasant 3. yes 3. in between 4. pleasant 77. Studied about such people 78. Has this experience been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no 1. no such experience i 2. yes 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant 80. has this experience been mostly 79. Have worked as a teacher with pleasant or unpleasant? such people 1. no such experience 2. unpleasant 3. in between 4. pleasant I. no 2. yes 3968 — i.- ABS-MR: U.S. -21- This part of the booklet deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers of all persgns are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anon ous or confidential, you may anSWer all of the questions freely without any concern about being iden- tified. It is hnportant to the study to obtain your answer to every_guestion. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the answer you choose. 81. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 82. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. Under 20 years of age 2. 21-30 30 31-40 4. 41-50 5. 50 - over 83. Below are listed several different kinds of schools or educational divisions. In respect to these various kinds or levels of education, which one have you had the most professional or work experience with, Qggdo you have the most knowledge about? This does not refer to your owu education, but to your professional work or related experiences with education. 1. I have had no such experience 2. Elementary school (Grade school) 3. Secondary school (High school) 4. College or University 5. Other types 3968 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. AA’A ABS-MR: U.S. -22- What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced 4. Widowed 5. Separated What is your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. Catholic 3. Protestant 4. Jewish 5. Other or none About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. I have no religion 3. Not very important ' 4. Fairly important 5. Very important About how much education do you have? 1. 6 years of school or less 2. 9 years of school or less 3. 12 years of school or less 4. Some college or university 5. A college or university degree How would you Some people are more set in their ways than others. rate yourself? 1. I find it very difficult to change 2. I find it slightly difficult to change 3. I find it somewhat easy to change 4. I find it very easy to change my ways ABS‘MR: U.S. -23- 89, Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whedmerw possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 90. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people. What is your feeling about a married c0up1e practicing birth control? . Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to '1. decide, would you say that are doing wrong, or that they are doing right? 1. It is always wrong 20 It is usually wrong 3. It is probably all right 4. It is always right 91. People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. He do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually they create new jobs and raise the standard of living." : l. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 92. Running a village, city, town, or any governmental organization is an important job. What is your feeling on the following statement? "Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job.” 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. $11 htl a ree 1 8 Y 8 444444447 , ..- AA-.. ‘ ' ‘ ABS-MIR: U.S. -24- 93. Some poeple believe that more local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 94. Some people believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 95. People have different ideas about planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? 1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the church 2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents 3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by ; the individual city or other local governmental unit ‘ 4. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government 96. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer 2. I have no religion 3. Sometimes 4. Usually 5. Almost always 3968 ——'————_” ABS-MR: U.S. -25- 97. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree slightly 3. Disagree slightly 4. Disagree strongly QUESTIONNAIRE: HP This part of the questionnaire deals with your experiences or contacts with handicapped persons. Perhaps you have had much contact with handicapped per- sons, or you may have studied about them. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with handicapped persons, and may have never thought much about them at all. 98. Some handicapped conditions are listed below. In respect to these various handicaps, with which one have you had the most actual experience? 1. blind and partially blind 2. deaf, partially deaf, or speech impaired 3. crippled or spastic . mental retardation .5) . social or emotional disorders 1 U1 I In the following questions, 99 through 103 you are to refer to the category of the handicapped persogs you have just indicated. 99. The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with the category of handicapped person you indicated in the previous question. If more than one category of experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. x x ' 4 x l. I have read or studied about handicapped persons through ‘ reading, movies, lectures, or observations i0 . A friend or relative is handicapped 3. I have personally work with handicapped persons as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. 4. I, myself have a fairly serious handicap 3968 ABS-MR: U.S. -26- 100. Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with the category of handicapped persons indicated in question 98, about how many times has it been altogether? 1. Less than 10 occasions 2. Between 10 and 50 occasions 3. Between 50 and 100 occasions 4. Between 100 and 500 occasions 5. More than 500 occasions 101. When you have been in contact with this category of handicapped people how easy for you, in general, would it have been to have avoided being with these handicapped persons? 1. I could not avoid the contact 2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost of difficulty 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty 4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience 5. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience 102. During your contact with this category of handicapped persons, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? 1. No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain 2. Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped persons 3. Yes, I have received academic credit or other material gain 4. Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit 103. l£_you have been paid for working with handicapped persons, about what percent of your income was derived from contact with handicapped persons during the actual period when working with them? 1. No work experience 2. Less than 25% 3. Between 26 and 50% 4. Between 51 and 75% 104. 105. 106. 3968 ABS-MR: U.S. -27- If you have ever worked with any category of handicapped persons for personal gain (for example, for money or some other gain), what oppo - tunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead' that 13, soemthing else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? ’ 1. No such experience 2. No other job was available 3. Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me 4. Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it been altogether? 1. Less than 10 occasions 2. Between 10 and 50 occasions 3. Between 50 and 100 occasions 4. Between 100 and 500 occasions 5. More than 500 occasions How have you generally felt about your experiences with mentally retarded persons? 1. No experience 2. I definitely disliked it 3. I did not like it very much 4. I liked it somewhat 5. I definitely enjoyed it -28- LIFE SITUATIONS ABS-MR: U.S. This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aSpects of life or life situations. Please indicate how circling the answer you choose. 107. It should be possible to eliminate 108. war once and for all . strongly disagree . disagree ., agree . strongly agree ¢~w Nba 109. Success depends to a large part 110. on luck and fate. 1. strongly agree 2. agree 3. disagree 4. strongly disagree 111. Some day most of the mysteries of 112. the world will be revealed by science. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 113. By improving industrial and agri- 114. cultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree J—‘LONH 115. With increased medical knowledge 116. it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree 3968 you feel about each situation by How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . not very sure fairly sure . very sure buster-I 0 How Sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . not very sure . fairly sure . very sure Dle—I How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . not very sure . fairly sure . very sure DWNH How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all . ~not very sure . fairly sure . very sure waI—I How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all not very sure fairly sure . very sure war—J O 117? 119. 121. 123. 3968 -29- Someday the deserts will be con- 118. verted into good farming land by the application of engineering and science. 1. strongly disagree 2. disagree 3. agree 4. strongly agree Education can only help people 120. develop their natural abilities; it cannot change people in any fundamental way. 1. strongly agree 2. . gree Baflwagree 4. strongly disagree With hard work anyone can succeed. 122. . strongly disagree . disagree . agree . strongly agree war—I Almost every present human problem 124. .will be solved in the future. strongly disagree . disagree agree . strongly agree known—4 0 How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure . very sure wat—I 0 How sure do ou feel about y your answer? . not Sure at all not very Sure fairly sure . very sure 1 2 3 4 How sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure . very sure 0 waI—I 0 How sure do you feel about your answer? . not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure Dri-I .0 -30- MENTAL RETARDATION This section of the questionnaire deals with information about mental retardation. Please circle your answer. 125. Which of the following is a preferred method of educating mentally 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 3968 handicapped children: 1. to give the child work he can do with his hands (handicraft, weaving). 2. to place the child in a vocational training school 3. to make the program practical and less academic 4. to present the same material presented to the average child but allowing more time for practice. In educating the mentally handicapped (IQ 50- -75) child, occupational training should begin:: 1. upon entering high school 2. the second year of high school 3. the last year of high school 4. when the child enters school The major goal of training the mentally handicapped is: . social adequacy academic proficiency occupational adequacy . occupational adjustment waH Normal children reject mentally handicapped children because: of their poor learning ability of unacceptable behavior they are usually dirty and poor . they do not ”catch on" e~w N»4 0 The emotional needs of mentally handicapped are: 1 stronger than normal children 2. the same as normal children 3. not as strong as normal children 4 nothing to be particularly concerned with The proper placement for the slow learner (IQ 75-90) is in: . the regular classroom . special class 1 2 3. vocational arts 4 regular class until age of 16 and then dropped out of school 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 3968 ABS-MR: U.S. -31.. In school, the slow learner ususally: 1. 2. 3 4. is given a lot of Successful experiences meets with a great many failures is a leader is aggressive In grading the slow learner, the teacher should: be realistic,if the child is a failure, fail him grade him according to his achievement with relation to his ability not be particularly concerned with a grade grade him according to his IQ The studies with regard to changing intelligence of pre-school children indicate that: £‘U’hDh‘ C intellectual change may be accomplished no change can be demonstrated change may take place more readily with older children the IQ can be increased at least 20 points if accelerated training begins early enough The development and organization of a comprehensive educational program for the mentally handicapped is dependent upon: wap—I adequate diagnoses proper training facilities a psychiatrist parent-teacher organizations The mentally handicapped are physically: 0 4—‘LDNH O markedly taller markedly shorter heavier about the same as the average child of the same age The mentally handicapped child: looks quite different from other children is in need of an educational program especially designed for his needs and characteristics can never be self-supporting cannot benefit from any educational program The mentally handicapped individual usually becomes: 1. 2. 3. R a skilled craftsman a professional person a semi-skilled laborer unemployable ABS-MR: U.S. -32- 138. The educationally handicapped have: . at least average intelligence superior intelligence only always have retarded intelligence . may have somewhat retarded, average, or superior intelligence. waI—I 139. The mentally handicapped have: markedly inferior motor development superior motor development superior physical development . about average motor development D‘U>h>h‘ 140. The reaction of the public toward the retarded child seems to be: 1. rejecting 2. somewhat understanding but not completely accepting 3. accepting 4. express feelings of acceptance but really feel rejecting 3968 APPENDIX A.2 GERMAN TRANSLATION OF ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: ABS—MR 266 _l_ Bitte helfen Sie uns durch Beantwortung dor folgendon Fragen foetzustellen, vie andere Leute fiblicherweise fiber Intelli enzbehinderte denken. % Daffir ein Beispiel: Beispiel 1: 1. Blane Augen haben Intelligenzbehinderte - seltener'als andere Menschen 2. gleich hiufig ,3. hfiufiger als andere Menschen Wenn die anderen Leute im allgemeinen der Ansicht sind, dab Intelligenzbehin~ derte seltener blaie Augen haben als andere Menschen, sollten Sic die Nummcr 1 einkreisen. Das ist in dem oben gegebenen Beispiel bereits geschehen. Wenn hingegon die anderen Leute im allgemeinen der Ansicht sind, daB Intelli— genzbehinderte haufiger blaue Augen haben, sollten Sie die Nummcr 3 einkreisen. Das ist in dem folgenden Beispiel 2 bereits geschehen. Beispiel 2: 1. Blane Augen haben Intelligenzbehinderte _ 1. seltener als andere Menschen 2. gleich haufig haufiger als andere Menschen Bitte geben Sie auBerdem jedesmal an. 1W flatten Sis etwa bei dem folgenden Beiqiel die Ahtwort leich hfiufi singe— vkreist, sollen Sie nun angeben, wie sicher Sie sich Ihrer Ahtwort sind. Sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort sicher, sollen Sie die Nnmmer 3 einkreissn. Das ist bei BeiSpiel 3 bereits geschehen. Beispiel 3: , 1. Blaue Augen haben Intelligenzbehinderte -- ist bei Intelligenzbehinderten -' 1. geringer 2. etwa gleich 3. grafler Die Zahl der Kinder ist bei Intelligenzbehinderten - 1. grafler als bei anderen 2. etwa gleich groB 3. geringer als bei anderen Die Treue in der Ehe ist bei Intelligenzbehinderten — 1. geringer 2. etwa gleich 3. grBBer Intelligamzbehinderte kfimmern sich um ihre Kinder - 1. weniger als andere 2. etwa gleich viel 3. mehr als andere Die Wahrscheinlichkeit, sich an die Gesetze zu halten, ist bei Intelli- genzbehinderten - 1. geringer 2. etwa zleich groB 3. grofler 1°. 12. Wie nicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziomlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3._sicher 14. Wis sicher sind 81¢ 16. 18. sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwant? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Die anderen Leute sind im allgemeinen der Ansicht: é—————9 19. Intelligenzbehinderte arbeiten im 23. 25. 27. -‘- allgemeinen - 1. weniger regelmfiflig und zuverlassig 2. etwa gleich regelméBig und zuverlassig 3. regelmafliger und zuverlassiger Intelligenzbehinderte sind - 1. weniger fleiflig als andere 2. etwa gleich fleiBig 3. fleifliger nls andere Plane fUr die Zukunft machen Intelligenzbehinderte - 1. seltener als andere 2. etwa gleich haufig 3. haufliger als andere Die Neigung.sich lieber in der Gegenwart zu vergnfigen, statt fUr die Zukunft zu sorgen, 1st bei Intelligenzbehinderten - 1. stfirker ausgepragt als bei anderen 2. etwa gleich stark ausgepragt 3. weniger auSgepragt els bei anderen Die Neigung, anderen gegenfiber grausam zu sein, ist bei Intelligenzbehinderten im allgemeinen - 1. grfifler 2. etwa gleich groB 3. geringer 20. 22. 24. 26. 28. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher . 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie‘sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Vie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht eicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher -5— Die anderen Leute sind im allgemeinen der Ansicht: 29. Intelligenzbehinderte sind sexual] - 1. hemmungsloser als andere 2. nicht anders 3. Starker qehemmt als andere Unternehmungslust ist bei 32. Intelligenzbehinderten - l. weniger ausgepragt als bei anderen . 2. etwa gleich stark ausgeprégt 3. starker ausgeprhgt als bei anderen hie wirtschaftliche Selbsthndigkeit der 34. Intelligenzbehinderten ist - ‘ ' 1. geringer als bei anderen 2. etwa gleich 3. grbfler als bei anderen 36. Intelligenzbehinderte ziehen es vor, - 1. unter ihresgleichen zu bleiben 2. nur mit Normalbegabten zusammenzusein 3. mit allen Leuten gleicherweise zusammenzusein Dildung und Erziehung sind fur Intelligenz— 38. behinderte, verglichen mit anderen, - 1. weniger wichtig 0 2. von umstrittenem fiert 3. eine wichtige soziale Aufgabe Gebote und Verbote mfissen bei Intelligenzbehinderten - 1. strenger gehandhabt werden 2. etwa gleich streng gehandhabt werden 3. weniger streng gehandhabt werden frr—-9 3o.~ .sich'Ihrer Antwort? Hie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Hie'sicher'sind Sie sich 1hrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich'Ihrer,Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie_sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher aie sicher sind Sie Shh Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3.ddmr Wie sicher sind'Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Anweieungen zu Tbil II: Bitte geben Sie in folgenden Abschnitt jeweils an, eschilderten Beziehun en zu Intelli enzbehinp derten helten. _____________. . Bitte geben Sie auBerdem jedesmal an, Die Meinung der moisten ___—___, 41. Wenn intelligenzbehinderte Kinder 43. 45. 47. auf dem aftentlichen Spielplatz mit nicht-intelligenzbehinderten Kindern spielen, wird das in allgemeinen ~ 1. ahgelehnt . 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3.'bejeht Wenn intelligenzhehinderte Kinder andere, nicht-intelligenzbehinderte Kinder zu Heuee beauchen, wird das in ellgeneinen — 1. ebgelehnt 2. weder bejeht noch ebgelehnt 3. bejeht - 'enn intelligenzbehinderte Kinder nit anderen, nicht-intelligenzbe- hinderten Kindern Cemping-thrten Inchen, wird due in allgeneinen - . 1. ebgelehnt 2. weder bejeht noch ebgelehnt 39 1’03“; Intelligenzbehinderte mit einfachen ‘nfsfiben zu betrauen, de lie nur wenig lernen kfinnen.- 1. vird in ellgemeinen ffir richtig geheIten 2. int fragwfirdig anderen [cute ist tolgende: was andere Leute i5 allgemeinen von den hier g 5 E wie sicher Sie sich Ihrer Antvort sind. 42. Wie sieher sind Sie 44. ’ sich Ihrer Antwort? _ 46. 48. 3. Vird in allgemeinen nicht ffir richtig gohalten . eich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht aicher 2. zienlich sicher 3. aicher Wie sicker sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. zienlich sicher 3. niche: Wie eicher eind Sie sich Ihrer Antvort? 1. nicht eicher 2. nonuch' lichear 3. .iCh.’ W10 aicherleind Sie sich Ihrer Antuertz 1.‘nicht sicher 2. zienlich eigher 3. niche: -7— Die Meinung der moisten anderen Leute ist folgende: 49. 51. 53. 55. 57. Wenn intelligenzbehinderte Kinder bei €--9 5°. anderen, nicht-intelligenzbehinderten Kindern zu Mitteg esaen und ungekehrt, wird das in allgemeinen -- 1. abgelehnt 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. bejaht Venn intelligenzbehinderte Kinder mit 52. anderen, nicht-intelligenzbehinderten Kindern Geburtstege und ihnlichee ge- meinlem feiern, wird das in allgemeinen - 1. abgelehnt 2. weder bejeht nech abgelehnt 3. bejaht Wenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter cine ‘ * 54. Arbeitsetelle nur dann erhfilt, wenn sich kein geeigneter Nicht-Intelligenzbehinderter findet,wird das im allgemeinen —» 1. bejaht 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. abgelehnt Wenn Intelligenzbehinderte in der gleichen ‘ 56. Gegend wohnen, wie lento, die nicht intel- ligenzbehindert sind. wird’dae im aIIgeneinen - 1. ahgelehnt Z. weder bejaht noch ebgelehnt 3. bejaht w01m sin Intelligenzbehindbrtor mit Qinar' 58. Dir-on endinen Geechlechtt3 die nicht intel— ligenzbehindert int, euegehfleird den 1n ullgemeinen 1. abgelehnt 2. weder bejeht noch abgelehnt 3. bejaht Wie sicher sind Si. sich Ihrer Antwortt 1. nicht sicher 2. zienlich eicher 3. sieher W1. licher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort1- 1. nicht eicher 2. zienlich sicher 3.-licher lie aicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. abher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antuortt 1. nicht aicher 2. zienlich eicher 3. eicher Wie'eicher sind Sie lich Ihrer Antwort? 1- nicht sicher 2. aienlich eicher- 3. eicher -8; -Die Meinung der meisten anderen Leute ist folgende: 59. Kenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter'mit 61. 63 65. 67. 60. Wie sicher sind Sie Vaich Ihrer Antwort? ( .3 jemandem, der nicht intelligenzbe- hindert int, ins Kino geht, wird das 1m allgemeinen - 1.abgelehnt 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt, 3. bejaht- Wenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter jemanden heiratet, der nicht in- telligenzbehindert ist, wird das im allgemeinen - 1. abgelehnt 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. bejaht Wenn intelligenzbehinderte Manner sterilisiert warden, wird das in ellgemeinen - 1. bejaht 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. abgelehnt Wenn intelligenzbehinderte Frauen eterilieiert warden, wird due in ellgemeinen - 1. bejaht 2. weder bejaht noch ebgelehnt 3. abgelehnt 62. 64. 66. ,1. nicht éicher '1. niCht sicher 2. zienlich sicher 3. eicher Wie>éi¢her sind s1. '31. ch ”Hirer Antwort? 1. nidht nicher ' 4 2. ziemlich sicher J 3. sicker - ' :I' 5 Wie sichbr sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 2. ziemlich aicher 3. sicher Wie aicher sind Sie ‘ eich Ihrer Ant-opt? f j 1. nicht eicher 2. zienlich eicher 3. eicher 68. Wie licher sind Sie Venn jenand mit einem Intelligenzbe- eich Ihrer Antwort? hinderten Freundechaft achlieBen W111, vird dee in ellgeneinen - 1. nicht sicher 1. ebgelehnt 2. zieulich Bicher 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. bejaht 3' ‘i°h°? ; fl$k“ , - ‘ '9- xmwwsrwgflfifl Die Meinung der meisten anderen Leute ist folgende: 69. Wenn jemand einem Intelligenzbehindcrten é——a 70. W19 sicher sind 51° Sex-Appeal nachsagt, wird das in allgemeinen - sich Ihrer Antworfi? 1. abgelehnt . 1. nicht sicher 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 2. ziemlich Bicher 3. bejaht ' 3. sicher 71. Wenn jemand Intelligenzbehinderte ffir- 72. Vie sicker sind Sic geféhrlich halt, wird das im allgemeinen - sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. bejaht ' 1. nicht dicher 2. wedér bejaht noch abgelehnt ' 2. ziemlich sicher 3. abgelehnt 3. sicher 73. Ienn Intelligenzbehinderte eineBohrmaschine 74. Wie sicher sind Sie bedienen, wird das im allgemeinen - sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. abgelehnt 1, nicht Sicher 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 2, Ziemlich Sicher 3. bejaht V 3. Iicher 75. Ibnn Infielligenzbehinderten Gndd ffir ihre peranlichen'Auagaben anvertraut wird, , 76. Vie sicher sind Si. ”ich Ihrer Antwort? wird daa im allgemeinen -— ' 1. abgelehnt 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt 3. bejaht 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. eicher 77. Venn ein Intelligenzbehinderter cine Arbeit 78 Wie sich O ‘ e r . tut, mit der er fertig wird, ebwohl er kaum aichvlhr 81nd Sig ' er sprechen kann, wird das im allgemeinen - \ AntWort? 1. abgelehnt 1° nich - 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt ‘ t 31°her 2. ziemlich sicher 3. bejaht 3. sicher 79. Wenn Intelligenzbehinderte gezwungen Ierden, Bo W1 0 e " ‘ ganz allein ffir sich eelbst zu Scrgen, Vird 31 halcher 81nd Sie ‘ c due in allgemeinen - 1hr.” Ant'ort? 1. bejaht 5 ‘ 1 2 2. weder bejaht noch abgelehnt ..nicht sicher . ZiemliCh fl¢-L Anweisungen zu Teil III: In diesem Abschnitt geht es um richtigss oder moralisch richtigss Verbalton- Bitte geben Sie jeweils en, ob Sie-selbst die genannten Verhaltensweisen tfir richtis oder felsch halten bzw. ob Sie dbr Ansicht sind, daB Sie sich inteln ligenzbehindCrten Menschen gegenfiber so verhalten sollten oder nicht. AuBerdem geben Sie bitte wieder an, vie sicher Sie sich Ihrer Antwort sind. Glauben Sie,daB es in allgemeinen richtig oder falsch ist, 81. wenn ein intelligenzbehindertes Kind an einer Camping-Fehrt mit anderen, nicht—intelligenz- behinderten Kindern teilnimmt? 1. 1m allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen richtig 83. wenn ein intelligenzbehindertes Kind mit anderen, nicht-intelli- genzbehinderten Kindern zusammen ins Kino geht? 1.-im allgeneinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen richtig 85. wenn ein intelligenzbehindertes Kind bei einem nicht-behinderten Kind zum Mittagessen eingeladsn Iird und umgekehrt? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. 1m allgemeinen richtig 87. Ienn ein intelligenzbehindertes Kind an einer Geburtstagsfeier zusamnen mit nicht-behinderten Kindern teilnimnt? 1. in allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. in allgemeinen richtig 82. Wis sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwortt <—-——-> 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher 84. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antyort? ;' nicht sicher . ziemlich 51 - sicher cher 86 . Wig BiCher a' sich Ihrer 1nd Sie Antler-t 2 21e nicht sicher 3. sicher BICher 88. Wis sich sich 1hrer 51nd 819 0.!" AntVOrt? Glauben Sic, daB es in allgemeinen richtig odar falsch ist, 89. wenn der Staat einen Tsil der 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. Kosten ffir die Elementsrausbildung der Intelligenzbehinderten fibernimmt? 1. im allgémeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen richtig wenn der Staat a11e Kosten ffir die Elementarausbildung der In- telligenzbehinderten fibernimmt? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen richtig wenn der Staat alle Kosten daffir fibernimmt, dafi Intelligenzbehin- derte genau so lange zur Schule gehen wie andere Kinder? 1. 1m allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. in allgemeinen richtig wenn der Stast einen Teil der Arztkosten fibernimmt, soweit sie mit der Behinderung in Zu— semmenhang stehen? 1. im.allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im aIIgemeinen richtig Innn der Staat alle Arztkosten fibernimmt, soweit sic mit der Behinderung in Zusammenhang stehen? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen richtig wenn der Staat die Intelligenz- behinderten mit Geld ffir Lebens- mittel, Kleidung usw. unterstfitzt? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entschsiden 3. in allgemeinen richtig <——-——> .1°°- "is Bich 90. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer.Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. zienlich sicher - 3. sicher 92. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher 94. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemliéh sicher 3. sicher 96. Wis sicher 51 .. I nd 519 sich Ihrer Antwortz ;. nicht sicher - ziemlich 31 . sicker _ Cher 98' Wie Sicher sich Ihr sind sic er AntWOrt? 1. nicht sich". ' . ziemlich . 3. sich,r 8lcher er sind ' sich Ihrer Antwofig 3. sichgr icher h SiChop Glauben Sie, dafi es im allgemeinen richtig oder falsch ist, 101. wenn sich Intelligenzbehinderte €---? 102. W10 sicher sind 51° bei.gese115chaftlichen Veran-~ sich Ihror Antwort? staltungen frei unter den Nicht- . behinderten bewegon? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 1. nicht sicher 2. nicht zu entscheiden 2. ziemlich sicher 3. im allgemeinen richtig 3. sicher 103. wenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter 104. Vie sicher sind Sie mit einer Person anderen Geechlechts, sich Ihrer Antwort? die nicht intelligenzbehindert ist, susgeht? 1. in allgemeinen falsch 1. nicht Bicher 2. nicht zu entscheiden 2. ziemlich Bichor 3. in allgemeinen richtig 3. nicher 105..wenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter mit jemandem, der nicht intelli- genzbehindert ist, ins Kino geht? 106. Wis sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. in allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. in allgemeinen richtig 1. nicht sicher , 2. ziemlich sicher . sicher 1ofi. wenn ein Intelligenzbehinderter 108. jomanden heiratet, der nicht ZizhiiCher sind Sie intelligenzbehindert ist? hrer Antwort7 1. in allgemeinen talsch 1 1 2. nicht zu entscheiden ' nicht flicker ‘ 3. in allgemeinen richtig §° :i'glich sicher ' car 109. venn ein Intelligenzbehinderter 11. Wie 1 ° e chor zur Bundeswehr eingezogen tird? sich Ihre :ind 51‘ V r t 1. in allgemeinen felsch Vortz 2. nicht zu entscheidon 1’ niCht sich 3. in allgemeinen richtig :- ZiGEIich sich,r ° lichor 111. wenn bosondere Gesetzo zum Schutz 112 der Intelligenzbehinderten erlaseen ' W1. sicher 51 werden? Sich IhPOP Aug: Si. ‘ art? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 2. nicht zu entscheiden 1- Rich: .1 h 3. in allgemeinen richtig - 21.1.11 c 9" lichg. ch 'dcher o13~a Glauben Sie, duB es im allgemeinen richtig oder falsch ist,. 113. wenn Sondereinrichtungen geschaffen é-*'--9 114. Wie sicher 51nd Sie werden, die es Intelligenzbehinderten sich Ihrer Antwort? ermfiglichen, sich in der Stadt besser zurechtzufinden? 1. im allgemeinen faIsch 1. nicht sicher 2. nicht zu'entscheiden 2. ziemlich sicher 3. im allgemeinen richtig 3. sicher 115. wenn die Intelligenzbehinderten 116. Wie sicher sind Sie sterilisiert warden? sich Ihrer Antvort? 1. im a'ngemeinen richtig 1, nicht sich” 2. nicht zu entscheiden 2. Ziemlich sicher 3. in allgemeinen falsch 3. sicher, 117. wenn alle,intelligenzbehinderten Kinder eigene Schulen besuchen, so daB sie nicht mit anderenKin— dern zusammenkommen? 118. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. im allgemeinen richtig 2. nicht zu entscheiden 3. im allgemeinen falsch 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher 119. wenn bestimmte Arbeitsplitze 12°. W ' ' . ffir die Intolligenzbehinderten sieh81Cher 81nd Sig reserviert werden? c Ihrer Antwert? 1. im allgemeinen falsch 1 2. nicht zu entscheiden 2' “?Cht sicher 3. in allgemeinen richtig ' ‘ z19mlich. SiCher 3- sicher -14- Anwoisungon zu Toil IV: In diosom Abschnitt goht es un das Vorhalten anderen gegenfibor. Bitto geben Sie joveilo an, vie Sie gersfinlich sich Intolligonzbehinderten gegonfibor verhelton wfirden. Anschlioaend gebon Sie bitte wioder an, vie sichor Sie sich Ihror Antwort sind. Wfirden Sio -_ 121. sich auf einer langon Bohnfahrt é—-——~—€> 122u Wio sicher sind Sie nebon einon Intolligenzbohindorten sich Ihror Antvort? sotzon? 1. noin 1. nicht sichor 2. woiB nicht 2. ziomlich sichor 30 3a 3e aloha, 123. oinon Inteiligenzbohindorton 31: 124. Wio sichor sind Sie ’ Mitarboitor habon wollon? sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nein 1. nicht sicher 2. vein nicht 2. ziomlich sicher 3. ja 3. sicher .125. einen Intelligenzbehinderten 126, Wie sicher sind Sie ffir sich arboiten loosen? sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sichor 1. nein . 2. woiB nicht 2. ziomlich Sicher 3. sicher 3. ja 128. Wie sicher sind Sio 127. Tfir an Tfi der Haus an Haus r o sich Ihror Antwort? mit eino- Intolligenzbohinderien wohnon wollen? 1 . nicht 51 char 1. nein . . . 2. weiB nicht g. :;:::;ch oicher 3e 38 130. Wie sichor sind Sie 129. ' ' einen Intelligenzbehinderten zu sich Ihrer Antwort? einer Party odor Fbier bei sich ‘ d ? einla ?“ 1. nicht sichor 1. nein h i he 2. vein nicht 3' :izziic 8 C r 3e 38 . —15- Wfirden Sie — 131. oine Einladung zum Mittagessen bei einom Intelligenzbehinderten annehmen? 1. noin 2. weiB nicht 3. ja 133. mit einem/einer Intelligenzbehin- derton zusammen in’s Kine gehen? 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja 135. es Ihrem Sonn odor Ihror Tochter erlauben, mit einem/einor Intelli- gonzbehindorten auszugehen? 1. nein 2. woiB nicht 3. ja .137. nit oinem/einor Intelligenzbehin- ,dorton zusammen ausgehen? 1. nein 2. weifi nicht 3. ja ' 139. es Ihron Sohn odor Ihror Tochter orlauben, oine(n) Intelligenzbehin- derte(n) zu poiraten? 1. nein 2. weiB.nicht 3. 32 141 mit einem/oiner Intelligenzbehin- derton in sexnellor Hinsicht 81UCk' lich soin kfinnon? 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3e 33 ( 132. Wio sicher sind Sie 134. 136. 138. 140. 142. sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwcrt? 1. nicht sichor 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sichor Wie sicher sind Sio sich Ihror AntWOrt? 1. nicht sichor 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sio sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziomlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sichor sind Sie sich Ihror Antrart? 1. nicht sichor 2. ziomlich sicher 3. sichor Wfirdon Sio - 143. 145. 147. gorn ffir Intelligenzbehinderto arbeiton? 1e nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja ebonso gorn ffir Intelligenzbehin- derte wio ffir andere Bohinderto ,arbeiten? 1. nein 2. woiB nicht 3. 3o gorn ffir Intolligonibohindorto arbeiton, dio zusfitzlich psychisch gostfirt sind? 1. nein “2.‘woiB nicht 149. 151. 153. 3.‘ja einon Intelligenzbehinderton einstellen. wonn Sie Arbeitgober wfiren? 1. nein 2. woiB nicht 3- 3‘ 1 einen Intolligonzbehindorten in Ihror Klaase haben wollon, wonn Sie Lehrer varen? 1. nein 2. woiB nicht 3. J. die Intelligenzbehinderton sterili- Iioron lasson, wonn sie dhrfiber zu bestimmen kitten? 1. jo 2. veiB nicht 3. nein <—-——> 144. 146. 148. 3.50. 152. 154. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihror Anfwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziomli'cb Richer 3. sicher Wio sicher sind Sio sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nicht sichor 2. ziemlich aichor 3. sichor Wie sicher sind Sio sich Ihror Antwortz 1. nicht sicher 2. ziomlich sichor 3. sicher Wio sbhor sind Sie sich Ihror lntwortt 1. nicht sicher 2. ziomlich sicher 3. sichor Wio sichor sind Sio sich Ihror Antwert? 1. nicht sichor 2. ziomlich sicker 3. sicher Wio sicker sind Sio sich Ihror Antwort? 1. nicht oichor 2. ziemlich sichor 3. sicher Wfirden Sie ~ 155. die Intelligamzbehinderten von der (¥--9 157. 159 fibrigen Bevélkerung absondern, wenn Sie darfiber zu bestimnen bitten? 1. in 2. weiB nicht 3. nein meinen, daB die Serge ffir die Intelliu genzbehinderten einen Hinweis auf den sozialen Entwicklungsstand eines V01» kes gibt? 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja Sonderklassen far Intelligenzbehinderte in Normalschulen einrichten, wenn Sie kannten? 1. nein 2. weifi nicht 3. ja 156. 158. 160. Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3.‘sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sieher 3. eficher ' Wie sicher sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher ‘ Anweisungen zu Teil V: In diesem Abschnitt geht es um Geffihlshaltungen gegenfiber Intelligenzbehin- derten. Bitte geben Sie jeweils an, welche Geffihle Sie Menschen entgegen- bringena die intelligenzbehindert sind, und zwar im Vergleich zu ablchen, die es nicht sind. Gdnn Sie bitte auflerdem an, wie sicher Sie sich Ihrer Antwort sind. Welche Geffihle haben Sie Menschen gegenfiber, die intelligenzbehin- uert sind, im Vergleich zu solchen, die as nicht sind? 3. ‘0 o 11. Abneigung <+——————-——-——€r 2. Wie sicher sind Sie 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger Furcht 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger Grausen 1. mehr 2. kein Unberschied 3. weniger Ekel 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger Bestfirzung 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger HaB 1. mehr 2. kein Unterscfiied 3. weniger 4. O") o 10. 12. 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sidler 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher' 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3.‘sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher~ 3. sicher sich Ihrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antwart? sicn Ihrer Antwort? . Welche Geffihle haben Sie Menschen gegenfiber, die intelligenzbehin- dert sind, 1m Vergleich zu solchen. die es nicht sind? 13. Abscheu (“'--————-€> 14. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 15. Verachtung 16. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 17. Widerwillen 18. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 19‘. Ubelkeit 20. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 21. Verwirrung 22- 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 23. Ablehnung 24. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 25. Ungezwungenheit 26- 1. weniger 2. kein UnLerschied 3. mehr Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher' die sicher sind 519 1. nicht sicher 2 ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher hie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sidler 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher sich Ihrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antnort? sich Inrer An1w3re? sich Ihrer Antwort? sicn Ihror Antwort? sich ibrer Antwort? sich Ihrer Antwort? Wolche Geffihle haben Sio Menschen gegenfiber, die intelligenzbehin- dart sind, 1m Vergleich zu solchen, die on nicht sind? 27. Unruhe <-—————> 28. 1. mehr 2. Rain Unterschied 3. weniger 29. Unbehaglichkeit 3o. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 31. Erleichterung 32. 1. weniger 2. kein Unterschied 3- mehr 33 Spannung 34- 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 35. Traurigkeit 36. 1. mehr 2. kein Unterschied 3. weniger 37. Ruhg ' 38. 1, weniger 2. kein Unterschied 3' mehr 39 Zufriedenheit 40° 1_weniger 2. kein Unterschied 3' mehr Wie sicher‘sind Sie sich 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Vie sicher sind Sie sich 1 . nicht sich er 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher‘ 3. sibher Wie sicher sind Sie sich 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Wie sicher sind Sie sich 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Hie sicher sind Sie sich 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3.52hm‘ Wie sieher sind Sie sigh 1. nicht sicher 2. ziemlich sicher 3. sicher Ihror Antwort? Ihrer Antwort? Ihrer Antwort? Ihrer Antwort? Ihrer Antwort? [Ihrer Antwort? Ihrer Antwort? Anweisungen zu Teil V1: In diesem'Abschnitt geht Es um die verschiedenen.praktischen Erfehrungen, die Sio schon mit Intelligenzbehinderten gemacht haben. Wenn eine Auseage ffir Sio zutrifft, kreisén Sie bitte due 13 ein, wenn sie nicht zutrifft, due 2219 net. Geben Sie bitte auBerden an, ob die Erfahrungen fur Sio angenehm oder unange- nehm waren- Bisherige Kontakte und Erfahrungen mit Intelligenzbehinderten: 41. Ich habe schon in der StraBenbahn,(—) 42. Hében Sie des'els angenehni oder 1m Bus, Zug oder Flugzeug neben unangenehm enpfunden? e1nem Intelligenzbehinderten gesessen. entféllt, da keine entsprechen- ~ 1. 1. nein den Erfahrungen vorliegen. 2. weifl nicht 2. unangenehm~ . , 3. ja 3. toils-toils 4. angenehm 43. Ich habe schon mit einem Intelli- 44. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder- genzbehinderten 1m Lokal am glei— unangenehm empfunden? chen Tisch geeessen. 1. entffillt, da keine enteprechen- 1. nein den Erfahnungen vorliegen 2. weifl nicht 2. unangenehm 3. 33 3. teils-teils ‘4.mnmm 45. Ich habe schon mit einem Intelli— 46. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder genzbehinderten in der gleichen unangenehm empfunden? Strafl Ge d ewohnt. ' e oder 8°" 5 entfallt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen '1 1o“. . 2. .223 nicht 2. unangenehm 3. Ja 3. teils-tcils 4. angenehm 48. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder 47" - ' I I telli- Ich habe schon m1t e1nem n unangenehm .npfunden? Eenzbehinderten am gleichen Arbeite» platz gearbeitet. entffillt, da keine entsprochene den Ertahrpngen vorliegen 1 1. ‘ 2 3:12 i ht 2. unangenehm ' 3° ja n c 3. toils-toils 4. angenehm ' 59 r22— Bieherige Kontakte und Erfahrungen mit Intelligenzbehinderten: 49. Ich habe schon einen Intelligenz-.(-—} 50. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder behinderten als Arbeitgeber oder Vorgeeetzten gehabt. 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja 51. Ich habe fur Intelligenzbehinderte schon ohne Bezahlung gearbeitet, um ihnen zu helfen. 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 30 38 53. Ich habe in meinem Bekanntenkreis einen oder mehrere Intelligenzbe» hinderte. 1o neill 2. weiB nicht 3. ja 55. Ich habe einen guten Freund, der ' intelligenzbehindert ist. 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja 57. Ich habe schon Geld, Kleidung uBW. far Intelligenzbehinderte gespendeto 1. nein 2. vein nicht 3. ja . Ich habe ein intelligenzbehindertes Kind. ‘ 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3e ja 52. 54. .. unangenehm empfunden? , 1. entffillt, da keine enteprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm “ . . 3. teiIs-teill 4 angenehm O Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? 1 entféllt, da'keine entsprechen— den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm » ~ ; 3. teils-teils 4. angenehm \ Haben Sie das als angenehm odex unangenehm empfunden? 1. entféllt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm ' ' 3. teils-teile 4. angenehm Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? entffillt, da keine enteprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 1 I 2. unangenehm 58. 60. 3. teils-teils 4. angenehm Haben Sie‘das als angenehm oder -unangenehm empfunden? 1. entféllt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm - 3. teils-teils 4. angenehn Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? entféllt, da keine entsprechen— den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm 3. teils-teils 4. angenehm ' 1 -23-. Biaherige Kontakte and Erfahrungen mit Intelligenzbehinderten: 61..Ich babe derte(n) Bruder oder Schwester. 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. 3a Mein bester Fieund ist intelli- genzbehindert. O5 '9' o 1.'nein 2. weiB nicht 3. ja ‘ 65. Ich habe schon gegen Bezahlung ffir Intelligenzbehinderte gearbeitet. 1. ja 2. 7013 nicht 3. nein Maine Kinder haben echon mit intar. _ligenzbehinderten Kindern gespielt. 67. 1- nein 2..weiB nicht 3. 33 69. Moine‘Kinder sind nit intelligenz- behinderten Kindern in die gleiche Schule gegangen. 1. nein 2. weiB nicht 3. in ~ eine(n) intelligenzbehin-4-9 62. 64. 66. 68. ‘70. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? ” 1. entffillt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2 unangenehm 3. teils-teils 4. angenehm Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? 1. entffillt. da keine enteprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm 3. teils-teils 4. angenehm \ l r | | Haben Sie das als angenehm oder ; unangenehm empfunden2 1. entffillt, da keine entlprechenn' den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm s 3. teils-teilz 1 4. angenehm Haben Sie das als angenehm oder ‘ unangenehm empfunden? i ‘ 1. entfflllt, da keine enteprechen~¢ den Erfahrungen vorliegen J 2. unangenehm 3. teils-teill 4. angenehm Haben Sio das als angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? 1. entffillt, da keine enteprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm 3. teill-teill 4. angenehm Bisherige Kontakte und Erfahrungen mit Intelligenzbehinderten: 71. Ich habe mich schon dafur ein-4F—-4D 73. 75. 77. 79. gesetzt, daB Intelligenzbehinderte eino bee-ere Beschulung und Aus- bildung erhalten. 1. nein 2. Iain nicht 3. ja Ich habe mich schon daffir ein- gesetzt, daB Intelligenzbehinderte geeignete Arbeitsplatze erhalten. 1. nein 2. 7013 nicht 3. 3a Ich habe schon orfreuliche sexuelle Kontakte nit Intelligenzbehinderten 88118.th 1. nein 2. weiB nicht so '38 Ich babe mich mit dem Problem der Intelligenzbehinderten durch Lek- tfire new. achon nfiher beschnftigt. 1. nein 2. J. Ich habe schon als Lehrer mit In- telligenzbehinderten zu tun gehabt. 1. nein .3. 72. 74. 78. Haben Sie das als angenehm oder unangenehm ompfunden? 1 entffillt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm A 3. toils-toils 4. angenehm Haben Sie das ale angenehm oder unangenehm empfunden? entféllt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehm 3. teils-teill 4. angenehm 1 Q Heben Sie das als angenehn oder unangenehm empfundpn? entffillt, da keinnentsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliogen 2. unangenehn 1 ' 3. toils-toils 78. 4. angenehn Haben Sie den als angenehm o der unangenehn enpfunden? 1. entfallt, da keine entsprechen- den Erfahrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehn ” 3. toils-toils 4. angenehm Haben Sie das a1: angenehn oder unangenehn enpfunden. 1. entffillt, da keine entaprechen- den Erfehrungen vorliegen 2. unangenehn 3. toils-tails 4. angeneh- ~ 111,115 “_ww,n , _25— In den folgenden Fragen geht es um unterschiedliche Dinge. Ffir den Zweck der Untersuchung ist es aber wichtigI daB Sie alle gestellten Fragen beantworten. Einige FYagen betreffen Ihre Person. ha die Antworten anonxg erfolgen und stren vertraulich behandelt warden kannen Sie offen antworten, ohne be- ffirchten zu mfissen,spater identifiziert zu werden. Far die Untepsuchung ist es wichtigI dab 519 alle Pragen beantworten. Lesen Sie bitte die einzelnen Fragen genau durch und lassen Sie keine Frage aus. Die zutreffende Antwort kreisen Sie bitte jedesmal ein. . 81. Geschlecht? ‘ 1. weiblich 2. mannlich 82. Alter? 1. 20 Jahre und darunter 2. 21 — 3o Jahre 3. 31 n 40 Jahre 4. 41 - 50 Jahre 5. fiber 50 Jahre 33. Nachfolgend werden verschiedene Bildungseinrichtnngen aufgezébltc Mit welcher davon haben Sie die meisten Erfahrun en esammelt oder fiber welche davon sind Sie am besten im Bilde? (Diese Frage bezieht sich nicht auf Ihre eigene Schulbildung, sondern auf Ihre nach der Schulentlassung gemachten Erfahrungen.) Bitte geben Sie nur e i n e A n t w o r t . 1. ich habe keine besonderen Erfahrungen und Kenntnisse auf diesem Gebiet 2. Volksschule 3. Realachule und Gymnasium 4. Hochschule und Universitét 5. andere Bildungseinrichtungen (z.B. Sonderschule oder Berufsschule) 84. Familienstand? 1. verheiratet , 2. ledig ‘ f 5. geschieden A} 4. verwitwet 5. getrennt lebend 35. Konfession? ich machte diese Frage nicht beantworten katholisch ' evangelisch sonstige 5. ohne rP-CANH O... 86. W19 Wichtig ist Ihnen die Religion im tagliohen Leben? 1. ich m6chte diese Frage nicht beantworten 2. ohne Bedeutung 3. nicht besonders Wichtig 4. recht'wichtig 5. Behr wichtig 87. 88. 8'9 . 91. -26.. I Welchen Schul- oder Studienabschlng haben Sie erreicbt? 1. Volksschulabschlufi 2. "Mittlere Reife" 3. Abitur 4. Hoehschul- oder Universitfitsbesuch ohne AbschluBexamen 5. Hochschul- oder Universitatsbesuch mit Abschluflexamen Einige Menschen sind in ihren Ansichten und Gerohnheiten besflindiger als andere. Wie warden Sie sich selbst einstufen? 1. es fallt mir sehr schwer, mich umzustellen 2. es féllt mir etwas schwen mich umzustellen 3. es fillt mir verhéltnisméBig leicht, mich umzustellen 4. es fallt mir sehr leicht, mich umzustellen Manche Leute sind der Ansicht, daB man bei der Kindererziehung, wenn irgend ‘maglicb, neue Wege und Methoden erproben sollte; andere dagegen vertreten die Meinung, dafl die Erprobung neuer Methoden geffihrlicb sei. Wie stehen Sie zu der folgenden Aussage? "W0 immer es mbglich ist, sollten neue Methoden der Kindererziehung er— probt werden." 1. ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicht 2. ich bin etwas anderer Ansicht 3. ich bin fihnlicher Ansicht 4. ich bin vollig gleicher Anaicbt Uber Familienplanung durch Geburtenkontrolle ist in letzter Zeit viel dia- kutiert worden. Tut ein Ehepaar, das Geburtenkontrolle praktiziert, damit Ihrer Ansbht nach etwas Gutes oder etwas Schlechtes, etwas lichtiges oder etwas Verkehrtes? 1. Geburtenkontrolle ist immer verkehrt 2. Geburtenkontrolle ist im allgemeinen verkehrt 39 Gebuflenkontrolle ist wahrscheinlich richtig 4. Geburtenkontrolle ist immer richtig Die Ansichten fiber Automation und andere moderne Produktionsmethoden gehen auseinander. Wie stehen Sie zu folgender Anssage? "Die Automation und andene moderne Verfahrensweisen in Prodiktion, Ver- trieb und Verwaltung sollten gefordert werden, veil dadurch neue Arbeits- platze entstehen und der Lebensstandard steigt." 1. ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicht 2. ich bin etwas anderer Ansicht 3-ich bin ahnlicher Ansicht 4. ich bin vollig gleicher Ansicht 92, Die Leitung einer Gemeinde— oder Stadtverwaltung Bowie sonstiger oftent— licher Einrichtungen int eehr wichtig. Wie stehen Sie zu!der folgenden 93. 94. 95 96. 97. Aug-age? "Politische Beamte sollten regelmiflig abgelBst werden, auch wenn sie, ihre Sache gut machen." _ 1. ich bill vollkommen anderer Ansicbt 2. ich bin etvas anderer Ansicht 3. ich bin fihnlicher Ansicht 4. ich bin v6llig gleicher Ansicht Manche Leute sind der Meinung, daB die Lfinder und Gemeinden mehr Geld fur dag Schul- und Bildungswesen ausgeben sollten, selbst wenn dadurch die Steuern erhbht werden mfiBten. Wie denken Sie darfiber? Manche Leute sind der Ahsicht, daB die Bundesregierung mehr Geld ffir das Schul- und Bildungswesen ausgeben sollte, selbst wenn dadurch die Steuern ; erbbht warden.mfiBten. Wie denken Sie darfiber? ‘ ‘ 1. 2. 3. 4. .27- ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicht ich bin etwas anderer Andicht ich bin fihnlicher Ansicht ich bin v6llig gleicher Ansicht E: ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicht ich bin etwas anderer Ansicht ich bin fihnlicher Ansicht ich bin v611ig gleicher Ansicht fiber Bildungsplanung und -1enkung gibt es ganz verschiedene Ansichten. Kreisen Sie bitte diejenige ein, die Ihrer Ansicht am nachsten kommt. 1. 2. 3. 4.’ Bildungsplanung und -1enkung ist vor allem eine Aufgabe der Kirchen Bildungsplanung und -1enkung ist ausschliefllich Sacha der Eltern § Bildungsplanung und -lenkung ist vor allem Aufgabe der Gemeinden und ; fiberbrtlichen Schultrfiger Bildungsplanung und elenkung ist vor allem Aufgabe des Staatea Wie weit richten Sie sich nach den Gesetzen und Vorschriften Ihrer Reli» gionsgemeinschaft? ich machte diese Frags nicht beantworten ich gehore keiner Religionsgemeinschaft an manehmal gewabnlieh fast immer fillt mir leichter. Anweisungen zu befolgen als selbst zu entscheiden. das ist vollkommen richtig das ist weitgehend richtig das ist nicht ganz falsch das ist vollkommen fnlsch ___ III- VIlrhk 9 ~DI— 9 0 fl! —28—' In den folgenden Fragen geht es um Ihre Rers6nlichen Erfahrungen mit ver- echiedenen Gruggen von Behinderten. Vielleicht batten Sio schon héufiger Umgang nit s¢hen Menschen und haben sich ausfuhrlich mit ihnen beech'aftigt. Es kann aber aucb sin, daB Sie bie- her nur wenig oder gar nichts mit ihnen zu tun gebabt und sich darum noch keine nfiheren Gedanken fiber sie gemacht haben.~ . 98. Bitte geben Sie von den naehfolgend genannten Gruppen von Behinderten diejenige an, mit der Sie bisher am moisten zu tun gehabt'baben. 1. Blinde und Sehbehinderte 2. Taube, Schwerh6rige und Sprachbehinderte' 3. Spastiker und andere K6rperbehinderte _ 4. Intelligenzbehinderte , \ 5. Sozial- und Gemntsgestbrte Dieiblgenden funf Fragen ( Nr. 99 - 103 ) beziehen sich auf die soeben Yonwl Ihnen genannte Grugne. ' 99. Die folgenden Fragen baben etwas mit der Art der Erfahrung zu tun, die Sie mit der oben angegebenen Grugpe von Behinderten gemaeht baben. Sollte mehr als eine der vorgegebenen Antworten ffir Sie zutreffen,~dann kreieen Sie bitte die Antwort mit der h6cbsten davorstebenden‘Ziffer ein. 1. ich babe mich fiber Bebinderte durch enteprecbende lektfire, Vortrage. Filmorffibrungen oder eigene Beobachtungen nfiher informiert 2. ein(e) Freund(in) oder Verwandte(r) von mir ist behindert ' 3. ich babe als Lehrer, Erzieher, Praktikant usw. schon bei Behinderten gearbeitet 4. ich bin aelbst ziemlich sclwer behindert loo. Wenn Sie alle Gelegenheiten zueammenzihlen, bei denen Sie schon mit Per- sonen der in Frage 98 von Ihnen genannten Behindertengruppe geaprocben, gearbeitet oder sonatwie zu tun gebabt haben, vie oft ist das etwa‘gewesen? 1. weniger als 1oma1 2. zwischen 1o- und Somal 3. zwischen 50- und 1ooma1 4. zwischen 100- und Soomal 5. fiber Soomal 101. Vie leicht bitten Sie 1m allgeneinen .den pere6nlichen Kontakt nit diesen Behinderten v e r m e i d e n k6nnen? 1. ich hatte den pers6nlichen Kontakt auf keine Weise vermeiden k6nnen 2. ich hatte den pers6n1ichen Kbntakt im allgemeinen nur nit gr6Bten Umstanden undSchwierigkeiten vermeiden k6nnen "3. ich hatte den pere6nlichen Kontakt im allgemeinen nit betrachtlicben Scbvienigkeiten vermeiden kannen 4. ich hatte den persbnlichen Kontakt in allgemeinen vermeiden k6nnen, wenngleich mit einigen Umstanden 5. ich batte den pera6nlicben Kontakt im allgemeinen ohne jede Schliem rigkeit und ohne a11e flnstfinde vermeiden k6nnen. i I ‘0‘ lot 1020 1030 164. i05. 106. Hatte Ihr Umgang mit der genannten Gruppe von Behinderten 1rgendwe1cbe aufieren Grfinde, etwa die Notwenigkeit, Geld zu verdienen, ein fur Ihre Ausbildung erforderliches Praktikumszeugnis zu erbalten oder 6bn11ches?, 1. nein, ich babe daffir niemals Geld, ein ben6tigtes Praktikumszeugnis oder irgendwelcbe sonstigen Vorteile erhalten 2. ja, ich wurde ffir meine Arbeit mit den Bebinderten bezahlt ‘ 3. ja, ich babe ein ben6tigtee Praktikumszeugnis oder fihnliches erbaIten 4. ja, ich babe fur meine Tatigkeit sowohl Geld als aucb ein ben6tigtel Praktikumszeugnis oder ahnliches erhalten , Venn Sie bereits gegen Bezahlung mit Behinderten gearbeitet haben, dann geben Sie bitte an, wieviel Prozent Ihres Einkommens Sie wahrend dieser Zeit dair erhalten haben. 1. entfallt, da bisher noch nicht gegen Bezahlung mit Behinderten gearbei1ef 2. bis zu 25% 3. zwischen 26 und 50$ 4. zwiscben 51 und 75% 5. fiber 761' Sie Wenbijemals aus aufleren Grunden, 2.8. gegen Bezahlung, fur irgendeine Grup- pe von Bebinderten gearbeitet haben, welcbe M6glichkeiten batten oder be» ben Sie, statt dessen auch eine andere Arbeit zu ubernehmon? 1. entfallt, da bisher noch nicht far Behinderte gearbeitet 2. es gab (gibt) ffir mich keine andere Arbeitsm6glicbkeit 3. andere sich bietende Arbeitsm6glicbkeiten waren fur michu fibggbagnt n1cht akzeptabe1(gewesen) 4. andere sich bietende Arbeitem6glichkeiten waren fur micb wen1geg akzeptabe1(geweeen) 5. auch andere sich bietende Arbeitem6glichkeiten waren fur mieb durcbaus akzegtabel(gewesen) Haben Sie schon mit Intelligenzbehinderten zu tun gebabt? Wenn Sie alle Gelegenbeiten zusammenzahlen, bei denen Sie schon mit Intelligenzbehin- derten gesprochen, gearbeitet oder sonstwie zu tun gehabt haben. wie oft 1 ist das etwa gewesen? ' 1. weniger als lomal 2. zwischen 10- und Somal 3. zwischen ‘50- und Ioomal 4. zwiSchen 100- und 500ma1 5. fiber Soomal Wie stehen Sie im allgemeinen zu den Erfahrungen. die Sie mit Intelliui genzbehinderten gemacbt baben? 1. entfallt da ich keine Erfahrungen mit Intelligenzbehinderten babe 2. ich babe sie ausgesprochen ungern gemacht 3. icb babe sie nicht sehr gern gemacbt 4 ich babe sie nicht ungern gemacbt 5. ich babe sie sebr gern gemacht In den folgenden Frag-en gebt ea -30... um Ihre Meinung und Stellungnahme zu veracbie- denen Problenen. Bitte kreisen Sie jeweile die Antvort ein, die Ibrer Aneicbt en nachsten konmt. _ 107. E: lollte m6glicb nein, Kriege ein- (E-1> 108. ffir allenal zu verneiden. 1. ich bin vollkonnen anderer Aneicht 2. ich bin anderer Anaicht Hie sicber eind Sie Iieb‘Ibrer Antwort? 1. gar-nicbt sicher 2. nicht eebr eicber. 3. ich bin fihnlicher Ansicht 4. ich bin vollkommen gleicher Ansicht 169. Erfolg im Leben bingt weitgebend vom Schick-a1 ab oder vom Glfick, dae einer hat. 1. ich bin vollkommen sleich-‘r Ansicht 2. ich bin ihnlicber Ansicht 3. ich bin anderen Aneicbt 4. ich bin vollkommen anderen Ansicht 111. Einee Tages werden die Wiseenscbaftler feet alle Weltrétlel gel6et baben. 1. ich bin vollkomen Inderer Ansicbt 2. ich bin anderer Aneicht ich bin fibnlicher Ansicbt ich bin vollkommen gleicber Ansiebt 3. 4. 113. Durch eine weitere Verbesserung der Produktionsmethoden von Landwirtschaft und Industrie kann die Armut in der Welt beseitigt werden. 1. 2. 3. 4. 115. Wenn die medizinische Wiseenschaft nei- tere Fortechritte macht, wird die durch- echnittliche Lebeneerwartung des Menecben ich bin ich bin ich bin ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicbt anderer Ansicbt fihnlicher Ansicbt vollkommen gleicher Aneicht auf 106 und mehr Jahre eteigen. 1. ich bin vollkommen anderer Anaicht 2. ich bin anderer Ansicht ich bin fihnlicher Ansicbt 3. 4. ich bin vollkommen gleicher Ansicht 3. 4. ziemlicb eicber sebr sicher' Vie eieber sind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. 2. 3. 4. gar nicht sicher nicht sehr'eicher zienlich eicher Behrleicber . Wie sicber eind Sie sich Ihrer Antwort? 1. 2. 3. 4. gar nicht eicber nicht eehr sieber \ ziemlieh sicber eehr eicher Wie aicber sind Sie sich IhreruAntvort? 1. 2. 3. 4. I I r gar nicht eicher nicht eebr eieber lie-lick sicker Bohr eicher Wie sicber sind Sie 1d 3. 4. r‘eicb Ibrer Antwort?v 'gar nicht sieber nicht sehr eicber ziemlich sicber sehr eicher h ‘31- ‘ . ‘- 117. Wiseenechaftler und Ingenieure 4————-) 118. Wie sie‘her sind Sie warden einea Thgea die Wusten eich Ibrer Antwort? der Erde in fruchtbares Acker- land verwandeln. 1. ich bin vollkommen anderer Aneicht ' 1. gar nicht sieber 2. ich bin anderer Ansicht 2. nicht eehr sicher 3. ich bin ibnlicher Aneicht 3. zienlicb_sicher 4 . ich bin vollkommen gleicber Aneicht 4. eehrveieher 119. Bildung und Erziehung k6nnen dem 126. Wie sicber sind Sie MenSchen nur belfen, seine natfirs eieh Ibrer Antvort? lichen Anlagen zu entwickeln; sie k6nnen ihn nicht grundlegend findern. 1. ich bin vollkonnen gleicher Aneicbt 1. gar nicht sicher 2. ich bin abnlicher Ansicht 2. nicht eebr sicher 3. ich bin anderer Ansicbt 3. ziemlicb sicher 4. ich bin vollkommen anderer- Ansicbt 4. sehr sieber 121. Jeder bat Erfolg, wenn er nur 122. Wie sicber sind Sie tfichtig»arbeitet. sich Ibrer lntwort? 1. ich bin vollkommen anderer Ansicbt 1. gar nicht sicber 2. ich bin anderer Ansicht 2. nicht aehr aicher 3. ich bin fihnlicber Ansicht. 3. ziemlich sicher 4. ich bin vollkommen gleicher Insicht 4. eehr,eicher 123. Fast jedes menscbliche Problem, dan 124. W1. sicher sind s1. uns beute bescbfiftigt, wird einmal eicb Ihrer Ant'ort? gel6et werden. ' ,1 I 1. ich bin vollkomnen anderer Anaicht 1. gar nicht gicber 2. ich bin anderer Ansicht 2. nicht eebr eicber 3. ich bin ahnlicher Ansicbt 3. ziemlich sicher 4. ich bin vollkommen gleicber~Ansicbt 4. eehr sicher 127 -32_ In den folgenden Fragen geht es um Informationen fiber Intelligenzbehinderte. Bitte kreinen Sie jeveils Ihre Antvort ein. i ‘ 125. Welches iet die bevorzugte Methode bei der Bildung und Erziehung 1ern- behinderter Kinder? - , xv".‘ 1. den Kindern Arbeiten zu geben, (Basteln, Weben usv.) 2. die Kinder in beech6tzende Werkntfitten zu acbicken 3. den Unterricbt m6glichet anechaulich und nicht zu theoretiech zu gestalten 4. den Kindern den gleiche Lehratoff zu vermitteln vie den durcbschnittlicb begabten Kindern, ibnen aber mehr Zeit zum intensiven Uben zu lessen ‘ die eie mit den H6nden tun k6nnen 126. Bei der Bildung und Erziebung geistigbehinderter Kinder mit einem Intelli- genzquotienten zviscben 4o und 66 aollte die Berufsauebildung — 1. mit 10 Jahren beginnen 2. mit 15 Jahren beginnen 3. mit 17 Jahren beginnen 4, bereite beginnen, venn das Kind eingeschult vird 127. Dan Hauptziel der Erziehung Geistigbehinderter int ea. -5 1. 816 an einem angemeesenen Sozialverbalten zu f6bren 2. lie zu guten Schulleietungen zu bringen 3. lie 26 e1nem angemessenen Arbeiteverbalten zu f6bren 4 aie beruflicb erfolgreicb einzugltbdern 128. Normale Kinder lehnen intelligenzbehinderte Kinder ab, veil eie - 1. so echlecht 1ernen 2. h6ufig ein scblecbtes Benebmen zeigen 3. h6ufig schmutzig and arm sind 4. eine "lange Leitung" baben 129. Die Geifiblebedfirfnisee der intelligenzbebinderten Kinder gind~" _ 1» - 1 1. et6rker als die der anderen Kinder 1 2. die gleicben vie bei anderen Kindern V T 3.\echv6cber ale die der anderen Kinder . 1 . . 4. etvas, auf das ee nicht eo ankomnt ‘ 1 130. Ein lernbehindertes Kind mit einem Intelligenzquotienten zviscben an and 85’ 1 ist am beeten aufgeboben'- ‘ ' T 1. in einer Sonderschulklasse t tt 3. in einer beech6tzenden Werks a e 3. in der Velksechule und sp6ter in einer T6tigkeit ale 611::zibeiter 4. in einer regulfiren Volkeschulklasee und sp6ter in einer 'm r { 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. Leicht Lernbehinderte - 1. haben in der Schule im allgemeinen zahlreiche Erfolgeerlebnisse f 2. haben in der Schule im allgemeinen zahlreiche MiBerfolgserlebnisse 3. sind in der Schule im allgemeinen die Anf6hrer ‘ 4. sind in der Schule im allgemeinen streitsfichtig und aggressiv I Ein Kind, das Schwierigkeiten beim Lernen.hat, sollte der Lehrer - 1. entsprechend den gezeigten Leistungen zensieren, ohne dabei die Be- gabung mit zu‘berficksichtigen .. 2. entsprechend den gezeigten Leistungen zensieren, aber die Begebung dabei mit ber6cksichtigen ' . ', 3. entsprechend seiner Begabung zensieren, ohne dabei die gezeigten Leistungen mit zu ber6cksichtigen - _, 4 6berhaupt nicht zensieren Untersuchungen 6ber die Intelligenz bei Kindern im verschulpfliehtigen Alter haben gezeigt, daB ' ' , . 1. die Intelligenz sich 6ndern kann ‘ _ *i - I. 2. die Intelligenz konstant bleiht ‘ ’ _ 3. eine Intelligenzsteigerung ehfldbei 61teren Kindern zu erwarten ist als bei jfingeren 3 ~ _ . E ‘4. der Intelligenzquotient um mindestens 20 Punkte gesteigert werden kann, wenn entsprechende F6rdermaBnahmen frfih genus einsetzen Die Entwicklung und Durchf6hrung eines umfassenden Bildungeprogram-e f6r intelligenzbehinderte Kinder ist abh6ngig —» . 1. von der richtigen Diagnose dieser Kinder 2. von geeigneten Ausbildungsst6tten 3. der Mitarbeit‘ eines Psychiaters H 4. von den Elternorganisationen und Lehrerverbanden Intelligenzbehinderte Kinder sind k6rperlich-' 1. erheblich gr6Ber als andere Kinder 2. erheblich kleiner als andere Kinder 3. dicker als andere Kinder > 4. wie andere Kinder gleichen Alters Das intelligenzbehinderte Kind-- sieht anz anders aus als andere Kinder . . . ”V _ brauchf einen Lehrstoff, der genau auf seine Elgenhe1ten und BOdUTf to... Q 0 1 nisee zugeschnitten ist 3. wird sich apater seinen Lebensnnter nicht selbst f6r sich sorgen konnen. . $ kann von keiner Art Unterricht profltleren halt nicht allein verdienen und m 137. ‘139. 140. 141. 142. 143. -04.... A ‘g‘w‘ 5‘5" .71"; 1- f Intelligenzbehinderte Kinder werden sp6ter meist - I,.,|3V “; .3 '6 1. geschickte Handwerker 2. Landarbeiter _ . ‘ 3. angelernte Arbeiter . , ' | 4. Arbeitslose ' " ' V \ Erziehungsschwierige Kinder - 1"'7 I I 4 1. heben eine mindestens duchschnittliche Intelligenz ' I,V Q a haben ausnahmslos eine 6berdurchschnittliche Intelligent. , _ ,. haben ausnahmslos eine unterdurchschnittliche'Intelligenz’ _ 4. k6nnen sowohl einen Intelligenzrfickstnnd wie eine durchschnittlich oder 6berdurchschnitt1iche Intelligenz haben , »‘j C ' f Intelligenzbehinderte Kinder haben im allgemeinen - 1. ausgeSprochen starke motorische Entwicklungerfickst6nde 2. eine besonders gut entwickelte Motorik ." 3. einen besonders guten k6rperlichen Entwicklungsatand ' 4. den gleichen oder ann6hernd gleichen motorischen Entwicklnngsstand vie andere Kinder , ‘f"r« ; Die Haltung der Uffentlichkeit gegenfiber einen Kind mit EPFVi9k1V“S‘*_. r60kst6nden ist in allgemeinenl— rivw. 1. bejahend und akzeptierend '. '\ . ' ‘ _ i' -> 2. nachzuBen hin bejahend und akzeptierend, in Wirklichkeit eber ablehnend 3. eher ablehnend als bejahend - a .. ' 4. ablehnend Uber welche Intelligenzbehinderten wiseen Sie am beaten Beecheid? . 1. Lernbehinderte "_. ,: 2. Geistigbehinderte ' 'fif "\ 3. Bildungsunf6hige ' ' _ 4. Lernbehinderte und Geistigbehinderte - ,r, .~ ; , 4 5. 6ber alle drei Gruppen gleichermaflen " , Haben Sie ein Kind, das eine Sonderschule f6r Geistigbehinderte_heeucht,, und wenn ja, seit wann ist das der Fall? - « 1. nein, ich habe kein solches Kind. S h 1V 2- 38 aber es besucht noch nicht die. c u e u 3- 38: es besucht die Schule seit wen1ger ale zvolf Moneten‘ 4- Ja, es besucht die Schule seit 1 - 2 Jahren 5- ja, es besucht die Schule seit mehr ale 2 Jahren _ Haben Sie ein Kind, das eine Sonderschule ffir Lernbehinderte hesucht? 1. nein, ich habe kein solches Eing' S h 19 2' ja aber es besucht noch nic 1e. c u H _ 3° 36: es besucht die Schule seit weniger als zvolf Monaten 4° 36. es besucht die Schule seit 1 - 2 Jahren hr 5' ja, es besucht die Schule seit mehr als 2 Ja en APPENDIX B SCORING PROCEDURE AND RATIONALE FOR COMBINING ABS—MR CONTENT—INTENSITY SCORES 301 SCORING PROCEDURE Combined Content—Intensity Scoring Procedure for ABS—MR Levels 1—5 Content.Alternatives Intensity Alternatives 0 — no response 0 - no response 1 — negative attitude 1 — weak intensity 2 - neutral attitude 2 — medium intensity 3 — positive attitude 3 — strong intensity Combined Scores Content Intensity Combined Rationale 0 1 o\ 2(Deleted from analysis 0 2 0 because attitude direction 0 3 O kwas indeterminable l O 2 (Intensity error assumed 2 O 5 /and neutral intensity 3 O 8] Lscore of 2 assigned 1 3 1 Strong negative attitude 1 2 2 Medium negative attitude 1 1 3 Weak negative attitude 2 l 4 Weak neutral attitude 2 2 5 Medium neutral attitude 2 3 6 Strong neutral attitude 3 l 7 Weak positive attitude 3 2 8 Medium positive attitude 3 3 9 Strong positive attitude 302 Combined Content—Intensity Scoring Procedure for ABS—MR Level 6 "Content" Alternatives ”Intensity” Alternatives 0 — no response 0 - no response 1 — never have had this experience 1 — no such experience 2 — uncertain whether have had experience 2 — experience was unpleasant 3 — yes, have had this experience 3 — experience was in-between U — experience was pleasant Combined Scores Content Intensity Combined Rationale 0 l 0 Deleted from analysis 0 2 0 because attitude direction 0 3 O was indeterminable O 4 O l O 2 Intensity error assumed 2 O 5 and neutral intensity 3 0 score of 3 assigned 1 U 1* Pleasant to have had no experience I l 2 No experience 1 3 2* In—between to have had no experience 1 2 3* Unpleasant to have had no experience 2 2 U Uncertain but unpleasant experience 2 3 5 Uncertain but in—between experience 2 l 5* Unlikely to occur — see footnote 2 M 6 Uncertain but pleasant experience 7 Definite experience but unpleasant 8 Definite experience and in—between 8* Unlikely to occur — see footnote 9 Definite pleasurable experience UUUUWUU .1:me *It will be noted that the scoring procedure is not as logically sequential on level 6 as on levels l—S. The difficulty arises from the additional "intensity" alternative on_level 6 not found on levels 1—5 and from the fact that the analyses were all programmed on the basis of the scoring procedure used on levels l—S. Because of difficulties encountered in changing entire computer programs to adjust for the additional intensity variable on level 6, it was decided to "program in" the fourth intensity alternative to the already existing programs and the scoring procedure shown above for level 6 is the result of this decision. The combinations with asterisks above are extremely unlikely to occur other than through chance error because of the inherent logical contra— dictions in these combinations. It will be noted that the remaining combinations maintain the same negative-to—positive direction and range (1—9) as the scores on levels l—S. Thus, the scoring system for level 6 represents a compromise between the ideal and the practical. APPENDIX C CODE BOOK SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR GERMANY 301$ CODE BOOK GERMANY (202) ABS—MR (Special Instructions) 1 of 4 Col.1 Scale—Item Item Detail Code Card 1 3, A Face Sheet Administration 01 Spec Ed (cert.) Group Ruhr College 02 Spec Ed (non—cert) Ruhr College 03 Reg. El Ed (cert) Ruhr College 04 Reg. El Ed (non—cert) Ruhr College 05 Parents—Retarded Max Wittmann School 06 Parents—Retarded Max Wittmann School (waiting list) 07 Teachers of M.R. 08 Parents-Normal 09 Manager—Exec. l3 ABS—MR Religion 1. Refuse2 Q85 (Affiliation) 2. Catholic 3. Protestant A. Other 5. None _ 2 15 ABS—MR Education 1. 8 years Q87 (Amount) 2. 9-12 years 3. 13 years A. Some University 5. Degree 1The card col. designations refer to the location in the Code Book scoring instructions for the United States version of the ABS—MR, available from John F: Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State Univer31ty. 2Item changed to attempt concept equivalence in Germany. 305 __j 306 CODE BOOK GERMANY (202) ABS—MR (Special Instructions) 2 of A Col. Scale—Item Item Detail Code Card 2 36 Scale II Public 1. Not Approved Q49 Playground 2. Undecided 3. Approved 44 Scale II Having Dinner2 1. Not Approved Q49 2. Undecided 3. Approved Card 3 HO Scale III Having Dinner2 1. Wrong Q85 2. Undecided 3. Right 50 Scale IV Progeny Date3 I. No Ql35 2. Don't Know 3. Yes 52 Scale IV Self Date3 1. No Q137 2. Don't Know 3. Yes Card 5 70 Scale V Sadness2 1. Not Sure Q36 2. Fairly Sure 3. Sure 961116 50 Scale VI A Good Friend2 1. No Q55 2. Don't Know 3. Yes 2Item changed to attempt concept equivalence in Germany. 3Items 135 and 137 reversed in German version. 307 CODE BOOK GERMANY (202) ABS—MR (Special Instructions) 3 of 4 Col. Scale—Item Item Detail Code Card 6 514 Scale VI Child Similar2 1 No Q55 2. Don't Know 3. Yes 57 Scale VI Sibling I. No Q62 Similar2 2. Don't Know 3. Yes Card 7 55 MR Ql26 Occup. Training l. 10 years of age2 MR (IQ AO—60) 2. 15 years of age . 17 years of age *A. Beginning of School 59 MR Ql3O Slow Learner *1. Special School Placement Class (IQ 70—85) Sheltered Workshop 2. 3. Reg. School & Employ as Labor A. Reg. School & Later a Trade 61 MR Ql32 Slow Learner 1. According to (Grades) Performance2 *2. Performance & Ability . Ability Only Don't Grade DUO . Craftsman2 Farmworker Semi Skilled Unemployed 66 MR Q13? MR Becomes * JEWIUH 2Item changed to attempt concept equivalence in Germany. * Correct answer. __T 308 CODE BOOK GERMANY (202) ABS—MR (Special Instructions) A of A Col. Scale—Item Item Detail Code Card 7 69 MR QlAO Public Reaction 1. Accepting2 MR *2 Covert Rejection 3. More Rejecting than Accepting A. Rejecting 73 MR—KSu Type MR Mild G Supple— (Most Knowledge)2. Moderate ment 3. Severe QlAl A. Mild & Moderate 5. All Three 7A MR—KSu Moderately 1. No Such Child G Supple— Retarded Child 2 Not Yet in School ment (Time in School)3. Less Than I Year QlA2 A. l-2 Years 5. More Than 2 Years 75 MR-Ksu Mildly Retarded 1. No Such Child G Supple— Child 2. Not Yet in School ment (Time in School)3. Less Than 1 Year QlA3 A. 1—2 Years 5. More Than 2 Years 2Item changed to attempt concept equivalence in Germany. ' “Item lAl—lA3 were added for the German study. * Correct answer. APPENDIX D 5 STATISTICAL MATERIAL 309 310 .pwULMummlcoz mo mesopmm .omcsmwmm >HH6psmE mo mpcmnmm m m .mo>fip:ooxMIwad:m:m .mhwcomwe :osumospm Hafiomdmm .mhwsomme smflzwwm: .HHH smpadno Es confluence ohm wwHQMHMw>H o.H H.m mm s. s.m mm m. s.m as w. m.m mzfi c. s.m was menacead .pccscm H.H m.m as w. :.M mm s. m.m ms m. H.m sea w. m.m med ca< Academe H.H .m.m os m. :.m mm s. m.m as m. H.m mes w. m.m mea ca< Hmeoa sandman e ca< .cm H.H m.m as m. c.m mm s. m.m as H.H w.m NJH s. m.m was coccaccc< casm H.H o.m os o.a m.N mm o.a e.m as H.H m.m 32H m. :.m wsfi aacmachcS Hddfipflfidd o.H m.m es s. :.m mm m. H.m as m. :.m :3H m. H.m mad QOHpMEOp3< e. s.m os m. s.m mm m. c.m ms 2. m.m 32H m. o.m was Hoaucoo spasm m. H.m es s. H.m mm s. m.m as m. H.m sea s. m.m sea wcaaecm caano m. m.m os w. w.m mm s. s.m as m. m.m sea a. s.m msa emceeo cacm COHpMpCmHho m capo o. w.m os m. o.m mm m. c.m as s. s.m :3H s. m.m 03H coccpcccaaesaccfi em w 2 mm s 2 mm s 2 mm m 2 nm N 2 II II II I! III Hoanmfihw> cza mm: sex mal New .mmanmflsm> ucwpcmampcfl mm :0 marosw deEmm :mEsow sow m:ofiumfl>op Unaccepm new .mCMmE .m.2l|.mw mqmca mo. em a no cases aeeapaaoo .oa. u ac>ca mo. am a no cases aecaeaaom .mN..u ac>ma mo. so a no cases aeeasaaom .MN. - aceca mo. so a no cases aeeaeaaoN .NN. u acsca mo. cc a no cases aecaeaaoa .oa. u aceca mo. cm a no cases aeeapaaoa -- as. o:. ma. No. No.- -- oa. mm. ON. oo.- Na. -- No. mo. oa.- ao. oo. o -- ma. oo. oo. . oa.- -- aa. oa. oN. NN. -- Na.- so.- aN. mo. m -- oa. ma.- oo.- -- oo. om. sN. -- om. aa. mo.- 1 accaacez -- oa. oN. -- we. oa. -- oa. mo. m ocaceao --- oz. . - -- oN. . - -- ao. N -- mmo u No -- mam - No -- a -- oa. oa. ma. ma.- mo.- -- oa. mm. oN. oo.- Na. -- No. aN. mo. ao.- Na.- o -- ma. oo. oa. oN. -- :a. ma. oN. NN. -- ao. oo. oaa- mo. m -- me. No. No.- -- oo. om. sN. -- ao. oa. aa. a aceaaecz -- oo. oa.- -- oz. oa. -- mo. mo.- m oceaecco 1i . I -- ca. . -. -- oN. . I -- om. N ll ooo - Ne - mmo - No -- emo - No -- a 3 meQEmw HmpOH. NNm mUQULMpwmICOZ ho muEdem HN. :wms’flujomeIhmmemz 3m -- oo. Na. oo.- No.- oo. -- sN. aN. as. ma. ao.- -- ma. so. oa. mo. so. o -- am. oo. oo. oo. -- ma. oN. so. oN. -- om. NN. oo. oo. o -- ao. mo. ao.- -- oN. oN. oN. -- sN. mo.- oo.- 2 decades: -- om. oN. -- m. ma. -- oN.- oa.- m ocaccao m. m -- sN. . -. -- oo.- I -- as. N as - N amo - No -- oNo u No -- a -- oo. Na. oo. oo.- No.- -- sN. :2. ma. ao.- aN. -- oa. sN. NN. oN.- oa.- o . -- ao. oo. oN. sN. -- oN. so. oN. ma. -- so. ma. mo.- so. m -- em. ao.- mo. -- sm. ma. oN. -- om. mo. oo. 3 accaacez -- oo. oo. -- oo.- oN. -- oo. oo.- m occaesao mam. - m -- omw . - -- oN. - -- as. N - N mes - Nc -- ago - No -- a mwoppmuwm mo mucosmm wza mmswgomofi smazwom :s Hmsmcowme amaowdm wza o m a m N a o m a m N a o m a m N a .mmaQEmw cmEsmo pom mmsoom masonucprOo m2nmm< ao>ma Xam :0 mmoaapme pmpmpso zaadoaaadEw can meHMupo pom m.m®|l.om mqmapSmeMImewcmz sea os mo occaeocm so meccaca as mm mm whosomoe aoosom swasmom wqa mm mm macromme coapwospm awaoodm ampoe mamsom mam: Qsosw .wmagsww cwELmo Mo coauamOQEOO stxmmll.am mqm<9 ra--- I-I-lllbl. ---..--..4...-... .. ---. ...-l-.-. .. .... - :3... --....nx.-...---..-.... I........-. .--. . . .. .- . -. i- 1, MICHIGQN STQTE U II I II M lll-f 3“} "-. 312931028