What affects the attitudes of college students toward people with disabilities?
By: Andrea Schanz
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
What afTects the attitudes 01- college students toward people with disa bilities?
An Honors Thesis (HONRS 499)
By
Andrea G. Schanz
Thesis Advisor
Dr. Greta Yoder Slater
~Yt~lfl~
Ball State University
Muncie, Indiana
May 2010
Expected Graduation Date:
May 8, 2010
Thcs;::~
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILlITES
2
1-1)
'2'18':1
·Zif
;;':'010
Abstract
.S3JJ
People li ving with o ne o r more disability in the United States make up almost one-fifth of
our population (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). Furthermore, because two-thirds of the people living
with a disability are between the age s or 16 ane! 64 , policies and program s have been put into
pl ace to protect disabled people in the workforce, in public places, and in educational settings
(Waldrop & Stern, 2003). Many of these programs and policies are in the beginning stages of
implementation, so it is necessary to assess how people without disabiliti es are reacting to them
and the people they serve to help. Social work majors are taught about individual empowerment
and equality, and this leads to the research question of Are social work majors more comfortable
being around and working with people 'with disabilities?
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
Acknowledgements
1 would first and foremost like to thank Dr. Greta Yoder Slater for all of the hard work,
time, and dedication she put into helping me with this thesis and making sure everything was
perfect. There was absolutely no way I co uld have completed thi s projec Lwithout her, and I am
very grateful.
I would also like to thank the other professors in the Department of Social Work, because
without their love, compassion, and dedication to both the social work field and teaching their
students I would not have come this far in my career.
Lastly, I would like to thank my father, David Schanz, for being so supportive of me
during my four years at Ball State University, and for continuing to push me to live up to my
potential.
Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
4
The World Health Organization defines a disability as "an umbrella term, covering
impairments, activity limitations, and participation restriction" (World Health Organization,
2009). The United States Census Bureau found there to be 49 .7 million people with disabilities
living in the United States (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). This is 19.3% of the United States
population, or about one-fifth (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). Sixty-seven percent (two-thirds) of the
people who have disabilities in the U.S. are between the ages of 16 and 64; additionally, 52% of
disabled people between 16 and 64 years of age are male (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). Waldrop &
Stern (2003) also report findings that state people who were Black, American Indian, and/or
Alaskan Native reported the highest prevalence of disabilities.
The U.S. Census Bureau found that the majority of people with disabilities live in the
Southern United States (two-fifths), and that the state with the highest number of people living
with a disability is West Virginia (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). Waldrop & Stern (2003) theorize
this may have to something to do with the obesity rates in that state. Locally, there are 600
students attending Ball State University, which is approximately 3.4% of the population of
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
5
students (Reust, 2009).
Background
Accordin g to Cohn (2 002). one in 12 children and teenage rs has a mental or physical
di sab ility. whi ch is equivalen t to about 5.2 million people. The resea rch also shows that the
number of children and teenagers characterized as "di sabled" are steadil y ri sing, meaning it is
necessary to address this social problem (Cohn, 2002). There are currently many policies in place
in the United States, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992, which offer support
against discrimination toward the disabled community. However, it is not clearly understood
how other people feel , think, and behave toward this population. Children and teenagers with
disabilities are more often than not students in schools, which means the attitudes of the teachers,
administrators, and peers in the schools need to be addressed to provide an equal opportunity for
lea rning as everyone else.
Since one-fifth of the population is characterized as disabled, measures have been taken
over the past 40 to 50 years in the United States to provide as much aid as possible to this
population (Waldrop & Stern , 2003 ). Special policies and regul ati ons have also been put into
place to prevent discrimination against this population of disabled people in such areas as the
workplace. Unfortunately, however, discrimination, oppression, and bias against this population
are still reported by peers, employers, co-workers, and school corporations around the country.
Many researchers have taken an interest in assessing the attitudes of these different groups
toward people with disabilities. There have been many studies in which researchers have
distributed attitude surveys and questionnaires to student peers, co-workers, and employers of
people with disabilities in order to assess any biases or discrimination against them.
One of the problems with attitude surveys and questionnaires is that respondents have a
6
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
tendency to respond in a way that shows them in a favorab le fa shi on, which may not necessaril y
reflect their true opinions and beliefs; thi s theory is called sociall y desirable responding (van de
Mortel , 2008). In an effort to prevent skewed results from respondents who may be using
socia lly desirable responding (SP R), several social desirability (S O) scales were developed
LO
use when analyzing survey findings (van de Mortel , 2008). One of th e most common SD scales
used to assess attitudes toward people with disabilities specifically is the Chedoke-McMasler
Attitudes Towards Children with Handicaps (CATCH) scale (Vignes, et a1., 2009). Despite the
intentions of these scales, van de Mortel (2008) discovered by studying the results of over 14,000
attitude questionnaires distributed in the years 2004 and 2005 that 43% of the surveys that used
SD scales showed that SDR had influenced the results.
Vignes, et al. (2009) conducted a quantitative stud y with ado lescents to assess their
attitudes toward their peers in school with disabilities. The researchers used the CATCH scale to
measure their attitudes using three dimensions of attitudes: affective, behavioral, and cognitive.
The sample for this study included 1135 adolescents between the ages of 10 and 15, who were
from 12 different secondary schools, six of which had special education programs in them. The
CATCH scale was given to the students and results were counted, and the researchers also took
note whether the attitudes about other students with disabilities changed based on the sex/gender
and health of the respondents and whether or not they knew of or were friends with a person with
disabilities.
The researchers found that based upon the scores of the CATCH scale, which is measures
using a points-system, adolescents' attitudes toward other students with disabilities were
generally negative. The researcher' s findings also showed that more positive attitudes toward
disabled peers occurred more often when the respondent was female, was in good health, and
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
7
was friends with a person with a disability. These findin gs correlate with the results of project
author Andrea Schanz· s meta-analysis. which also showed that students who knew someone with
a disability reported feelin g more comfortable with disabled people.
The biggest limitatioll tl) the study was that the researchers did not assess whether the:
attitudes of the adolescents toward peers with disabilities changed with age. In order to show an
adequate assessment of how attitudes are reflected by the age of the respondents, the researchers
could have used a separate sample of younger children in a longitudinal study. Other than those,
there were numerous strengths to the study by Vignes, et a1. (2009). One of the strengths was the
size of the sample. Over one thousand students were studied, which allowed for a lot of different
viewpoints to be assessed in the study. Also, students were surveyed in both schools with special
education programs and without. which allowed for interesting comparisons about whether or
not that affected the students' attitudes toward their disabled peers. Another strength in the stud y
was that the population sample surveyed was aged 10-15 years, which decreased the probability
of the respondents using SDR. Young adolescents are usually still developing and fine-tuning
their own beliefs and morals, which means that they most likely answered the survey questions
based upon personal experience. They may lack the knowledge and understanding yet of what it
means to be "socially desirable." It was then very interesting to discover that in general, the
adolescents had negative attitudes about their peers with disabilities regardless whether or not
their schools had special education programs.
Barr & Bracchitta (2008) conducted also conducted a quantitative study regarding the
attitudes of college-aged students toward people with disabilities. The main purpose of the study
was to assess whether or not having previous contact with people with disabilities caused
students to have more positive attitudes about disabled people than students who had not been in
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
8
close contact with disabl ed peo pl e. The researchers hypothesized that the more contact a student
had with a person with di sabilities. the more positive his or her attitude would be about di sabled
people. The researchers f1ll1her hypothesized that the majority of the students with positive
attitudes toward people with d isabiliti es would be ed uca tion maj ors in school.
There were 211 undergraduate students from two ditferent schools who participated in
the study. One hundred seventy-one of the respondents were women, and 40 were men who
ranged in age between 18 and 21 . Of the participants, 102 were freshman, 81 were sophomores,
and 28 were juniors at their colleges. One hundred forty of the respondents were education
majors and 71 were not. The participants were given the Scale of Attitudes toward Disabled
Persons (SADP) scale, which uses a scale from 1 ("I disagree very much") to 6 ("I agree very
much") (Barr & Bracchitta. 2008). To analyze the data, the researchers used three subscal es
associate with the SADP, which were Optimism, Misconceptions. and Hopelessness. These
subsystems measure the attitudes of the respondents of their negative and positive attitudes
toward people with disabilities, as well as any biases and misconceptions. The researchers also
asked respondents to specify whether or not they had previously been in close contact with a
person with a disability, and if so, for what length of time.
Based on the data, there was no significant difference in whether or not a person had
contact with disabled people based on their genders, which schools they attended, or the type of
disability they came in contact with (physical, behavioral, or intellectual). Juniors had the most
previous contact with people with disabilities, and men ranked higher than women in both the
Hopelessness and Misconceptions subsystems. Based on the data, students who had previous
contact with people with disabilities ranked higher than those who had no contact in the
Optimism subsystem, and they also reported more positive attitudes toward them. The research
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
9
also suggested that, based on the data, being an education major in school positively correlated
with low scores in the Hopelessness and Misconceptions subsystems.
There were some limitations to the study. The first limitation is that there was a much
larger number of women surveyed than men, which may ha ve skewed the data based upon
gender difference. However, this limitation may have been unavoidable because the majority of
education majors are women. Another limitation to the study was that the researchers did not
establish any standard measure of what is considered "contact" with a person with a disability.
This left the questions regarding previous contact with disabled people subject to the
respondents' interpretations. Another limitation of the study is that it measures the attitudes of
students toward disabled people in regards to whether or not they were education majors. This
criterion limits the sample size, and may not reflect the views of many other students in that
cohort.
There were also many strengths of the study. One strength was that a survey specifically
designed to use to assess attitudes toward people with disabilities was used consistently with all
respondents. This allowed the researchers to gather consistent information in order to either
accept or reject their hypotheses. Another strength of the study was that the survey measured
Optimism about disabled people as part of the respondents' attitudes, so the researchers were
able to see whether or not students who had not been in contact with disabled people were still
optimistic about maintaining positive attitudes toward them.
A qualitative study was conducted by Stowe et aI., (2007). The study was conducted to
assess attitudes of people with disabilities toward genetic research about "curing" disabilities,
and the attitudes of society that caused such a suggestion. The researchers chose to conduct a
qualitative study because they wanted to identify concerns that were general beliefs throughout
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABlLIITES
10
the whole community of people with disabilities, rather than beliefs specific to a particular
disability. The researchers also wanted to provide different perspectives about the topic in order
to improve social advocacy for the population of disabled peopl e.
The researchers used a participatory action research (PAR) committee to surve y the
disabled community, which was made up of three disability advocacy leaders, three people who
either had a personal disability or were parents of a child with a disability, and four people who
were knowledgeable about the genetic aspect of the research . The PAR used three qualitative
methods of inquiring information: multivocal synthesis, focus groups, and interviews. The
multi vocal synthesis portion focused on the research and studies about the subject; the focus
groups were made up of 6-12 people who were grassroots members of the disabled community,
and the groups were held in 11 different rural and urban areas; and the interviews were held with
10 key infom1ants who were active state and national leaders in the disabled community.
The study had many interesting results. Participants in the focus groups and interviews
talked a lot about the lack of understanding and experience that most people have regarding the
disabled population, and they attribute that part of the cause of society's general negative
attitudes toward the disabled population. Many participants indicated that having a disability
means that there will always be suffering, and because of that the rest of society who is healthy
will never be able to truly relate. The majority of the participants believed that there is still a lot
of prejudice against, negative stereotypes about, and a negative stigma regarding people with
disabilities.
One of the limitations of the study is that the majority of the PAR committee had a
personal disability or worked closely to advocate for that population, which means that there
may have been some bias when asking questions during the focus groups and interviews. The
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
I1
people in the PAR committee almost certainly have their own beliefs regarding attitudes toward
people with di sabilities, so the y may have subconsciously formatted their questions with those
biases. A major strength of the study is the number of people surveyed, and the variety of topics
di scussed in the
f OC Ll S
groups and interviews. Data \Ve re co ll ec ted about a wide range of themes
and topics, all of which wi II be beneficial for professionals working with the disabled popUlation
to read about and learn.
Methods
The purpose of this study was to discover the attitudes that college students have toward
people with disabilities. A meta-analysis was conducted to answer the research question. Data
were collected using the following databases: Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, E-journals,
ERIC, Health Source Nursing Academic Edition, Medline, Psychlnfo, Psych lit, Military,
Governmental Collections, and JSTOR. The keywords searched included: disabilities. cognitive
impairments, schizophrenia, bipolar, physical disabilities, mental disabilities, Down's syndrome,
attitudes, college students, social work, psychology, nursing, education, medical students.
Studies done between 1984 and 2010 which were written in English were included. The
reference lists of retrieved articles were also searched for articles that were missed in the search
process. Qualitative studies were excluded and only experimental and quasi-experimental
designs were included in the sample. To be included in the study, comparison groups or control
groups were required. The samples were all college students (either undergraduate, graduate, or
medical students) in one of the helping professions: social work, psychology, nursing, education,
and medicine.
There were 26 studies that initially met the search criteria, but nine were eliminated for
numerous reasons. Three studies were excluded because they included both students and
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
12
working profess iona ls who had already earned thei r degree. One study was exc luded because the
professional backgrounds of the respondents were not identified. Two studies were excluded
because the y did not include enough detail to allow for group comparisons. and two additional
studies were exc luded becau se the respondents were adolescents rather than college st udents.
One final study was excluded because the outcomes measured were not closely enough related to
the present study. The final analysis included 17 studies; two which directly compared social
work students and another discipline, four that included only social work students, and 11 that
included students from other helping professions. The research question guiding the study was
as follows: What
d~fferences
exist between social work and non-social work majors regarding
people with disabilities?
The following hypotheses were tested:
HI : Socialll'ork students have more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities than
other helping professions.
H 2 : Social 'rvork students will have sign[ficantly more contact with people with disabilities
than non-social work students.
H 3 : Published studies involving social work students will have a 1O'vller mean effect than
studies involving other helping professionals due to their prior experience with
people with disabilities (and therefore smaller effect of the intervention on their
attitude improvement).
These hypotheses were based on the principles of the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) Code of Ethics (National Association of Social Workers, 1999) value of nonjudgmental acceptance of all people and the ethical commitment to "help meet the basic human
needs of all people, with particular attention to the needs and empowerment of people who are
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
13
vulnerable, oppressed. and li ving in poverty" (p. 1). Another important place that disabi lity is
emphasized is through the Council on Social Work Education ' s Educational Policy and
Accreditation Standards (EPAS) (CSWE , 2008). CSWE is the accrediting body in social work
that mandates the cu rricular standards for soc ial work training at the undergraduate and graduate
levels. Disability is one of the recogni zed groups given particular attention in the policy
regarding respect for diversity, " ... commitment to diversity-including age, class, color,
culture, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, immigration status, political
ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation (pp. 10-11)." An important purpose of the
present study is to analyze whether social workers are more comfortable and accepting of people
with disabilities which is essential for treating this population with respect and worth of every
person.
While se lecting studies for the meta-anal ys is. it is important to assess the credibility of
each study in order to use the most reliable data possible. Six points in quality were used to
measure the credibility of each of the 17 studies used in the meta-analysis; each study was rated
either "yes" or "no" based on the following six points: used randomized design , effect size
reported, less than 10 subjects per group, group differences, rigorous analysis, and reported
reliability. Studies that use randomized design offer a sample that is a more accurate
representation of the population being researched, thereby increasing the study's reliability. It is
beneficial to use a study that reports an effect size in order to prevent the possibility of using
different outcomes derived from the same data. The studies which used less than 10 subjects per
group offered a more in-depth look at the sample and usually able to gather more data. Having
group differences in a study is also beneficial because the sample sizes are more random,
increasing the credibility of the study. A rigorous analysis of a study in an article is also very
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILlITES
14
important because without a thorough anal ys is. som e of the reported data may be discredited.
Reported reliability is another important factor when determining a study' s credibility, because
without repor1ed reliability based upon the other five factors as well as other professionals, the
entire stud y lll ay be discredited and use less. Stud ies were coded and ente red in SPSS l 6. 0
Student Edition . Effect sizes were calculated for all studies. All data were entered in SPSS 16.0
and descriptive statistics were calculated. One-way ANOV A tests were used to compare group
differences between social work and other majors .
Results
Of the 17 total studies used in the meta-analysis, 29.4% used data from social work
students (N=5), 17.5% used data collected from nursing students (N=3), 23.5% used data
collected from education majors (N=4), 23 .5% used data from students majoring in medicine
(N=2), and the rest of the studies (17.6%) used data from mixed samples of students (N=3).
Table 1 shows the distribution of the studies by level of education. Table 2 shows the
educational levels of the studies included in the analysis. Four of the studies used data solely
from undergraduate students (23.5%), 11.8% of the studies used data solely from graduate or
doctoral students (N=2), and the remaining 64.7% used a mixed sample of data from
undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral students (N= 11). Some studies included in the metaanalysis used interventions and some did not. Table 3 shows the distribution of studies by
intervention type. Of the 17 studies, six used a didactic (lecture-type) intervention (35.3%), one
used an experiential intervention, two used a combination of both didactic and experiential
interventions, and nearly half (47.1%) had no intervention (n=8) and they simply compared
different groups.
The quality of the 17 studies used in the meta-analysis was assessed according to the
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
15
following six criteria those wi th higher quality more we ight in the analysis: random ization.
havin g sampl e si zes that included more than 10 subiects per group, effect size was reported,
examining (and controlling for) group differences. rigorous anal yses, and reported reli ability of
their measurement too ls (a nd analyzing their sampl e for reliability). Tables 4-9 sho w the
distributions of each of the six quality criteria used in the quality index. Of the 17 studies. 11.8%
used randomized design (N=2) while the other 88.2% did not (N= 15). Only 23.5% of the studies
reported an effect size (N=4), while the 76.5% of others did not (N=13). The vast majority of the
studies, 94.1%, used less than 10 subjects per group (N= 15) while only one study (5.9%) did not
(N=1). When looking to see if the studies used group differences, 35.3% were found to have
done so (N=6) and 64.7% were found to have not done so (N=11). Slightly over halfofthe
studies, 52.9%, reported using rigorous analysis (N=9), while the other 47.1 % did not (N=8).
Lastly, 58.8% of the studies contained reported reli ability (N=1 0) while the other 41.2% did not
(N=7). Table 2 shows the results of each of the six points of quality for credibility.
These data supported several of the hypotheses, but not completely. There was some
evidence to support the hypothesis that social work students have more positive attitudes than
students from other di sciplines toward people with disabilities. Two studies directl y compared
social work students with students from other disciplines. Both studies found social workers to
have significantly more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities. Schwartz and
Armony-Sivan (2001) found an effect r = .922 and Au and Man (2006) found an effect r = .248.
The average effect size for studies comparing social work and other helping professions directly
was r =.585. This is a strong effect and the studies used in this portion of the analysis were
rigorous (Schwartz & Armony-Sivan's quality rating was .833; Au & Man' s rating was .700).
These two studies had the highest quality ratings of all 17 studies and the evidence strongly
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
16
suggests that social workers have more positive attitudes toward people with di sabiliti es .
The ANOY A comparing differences between the mean effect for social work studies and
the other disciplines found that, although social work studies did have a lower mean effect than
studies in the other di sci plines. these differences we re not significant (F 3, 8= I. I 77. p ~ .3 78).
The mean effect in the social work articles (n=2) was r =.247, nursing (n=3) r = .4089, education
(n=2) r = .519, medicine (n=2) r = .530. Medicine was the group of studies with the largest mean
effects (r = .530).
The ANOV A comparing group differences between social work studies and studies
conducted with other helping professional samples did not support the hypothesis that social
workers were more likely to have had more contact with disabled people. Table II shows the
descriptive statistics for the group comparisons regarding the percentage of the sample that had
prior contact with disabled people. The mean percentage of sample who had prior contact with
disabled people in the social work articles (n=2) was r =.766 (SD= .235), nursing (n=3) r = .449
(SD= .500), education (n=2) r = .306 (SD = .039), medicine (n=2) r = .862 (SD = .195), and
mixed sample studies (n=4) r = .554 (SD= .121). The homogeneity of variance assumption was
not violated and there were not significant differences found in ANOV A analysis or pairwise
comparisons (F 4,g= 1.405, p = .315).
Discussion
Results from the meta-analysis showed that for the studies directly comparing social
work students and students from other professions, social workers had more positive attitudes
toward people with disabilities. The studies that directly compared social work students and nonsocial work students both found significantly more positive attitudes by social work majors than
non-social work majors. The average effect size was .585, which is a significant effect. These
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
17
results are supported by the literature, which suggests that soc ial work students and professional
social workers are more comfortable interacting with people with disabilities because they are
taught person-centered and strengths-based interven tions when working with this population
(Galambos, 2004). Other literature supports thi s hyputhesis by suggesting that the more
knowledge and understanding one has about a population, the more comfortable he or she will be
interacting with them (Evans, 2008).
Results from the meta-analysis also showed that, on average, social work students had
more contact with disabled people than non-social work students. Social work students and
medical students had the highest percentage of their respective samples having contact with
disabled people. Studies involving social work students reported an average of 76.7% of their
samples had prior contact with disabled people and 86.2% of medical students had prior contact
with disabled people.
The final hypothesis was that social work studies would have a lower mean effect of the
intervention (aimed at improving attitudes) than would studies from other helping professions.
This was based on the idea that because social work students were likely to have more contact
with people with disabilities, their attitudes would have "less room for growth" so to speak.
Another reason the mean effect was hypothesized to be lower than other professions is due to the
Social Work Code of Ethics that actively supports diversity and differences. Finally, the mean
effect was hypothesized to be lower in social work than other professions because of the
recognition of disabilities as one of the emphasized areas of cultural competence by the Council
on Social Work Education (CSWE)'s Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS,
2008). The mean effect was
Limitations and implications
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DlSABILIITES
18
There were some important limitations for meta-analyses and integrative reviews.
Chambers (2004) lists fOllr ke y limitations for meta-analyses that are relevant for the present
stud y. The first limitati on for meta-analyses is called the comparison of "apples to oranges,"
meaning thal il is difficult to compare two studies lhal are using two different research
techniques, because there is usually no connection between them (Chambers, 2004). The second
limitation is that some research studies are just simply not conducted well, and therefore the data
may not be credible when used in comparison to other research in a meta-analysis (Chambers,
2004). The third limitation of meta-analyses is that the majority of the studies that actually get
published in journals show significant positive results (Chambers, 2004). Because there may be
other studies that show differing results but may not be published because they are not
significant, the ac tual published articles may create research bias regarding the topic. The fourth
limitation is the fact that multiple findings are reported from the same study, which may also
potentially cause bias toward the topic (Chambers, 2004).
In addition to these four main limitations for meta-anal ytic methods, Chambers (2004)
also gave a broader limitation for meta-analyses in general. There are usuall y a great number of
studies done regarding a single topic, but a researcher putting together a meta-analysis only
chooses a select number of these studies to work with and analyze. Because only a certain
percentage of studies about a particular topic are represented in a meta-analysis, research bias
against the topic may occur.
This research will benefit the social work profession by providing information regarding
social work students' attitudes toward people with disabilities. Because it is expected in the
social work profession to be non-discriminatory or judgmental, social workers may not realize
that they don't have positive attitude) toward people with disabilities. Studies like this one may
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEO PLE WITH DISABILIITES
19
help raise that aViare ness so that social workers can be prepared and adjust their attitudes
accordinlll y.
The research may also be used in broader literature such as those related to inclusive
learning in sc hools. which is the method or immersing students with disabilities \.vith students
without di sa biliti es in schools (Vignes, et al. , 2009). Respondents who took the attitude survey
stated whether they believed in inclusive learning for students with disabilities. These attitudes
could be used to assess the success of such programs in schools.
Summary
Because nearly one-fifth of the population in the United States is disabled and an average
of 10% of college students have one or more disabilities, it is important to address the problems
associated with this population (Waldrop & Stern, 2003). In order to advocate for this
population, one must be aware of the attitudes others have about members of the population.
This study comparing attitudes of college students based on their major is helpful for better
understanding the role that interventions can play in overcoming attitudinal biases against people
with disabilities. Recognizing that there is still discrimination and judgment against the disabled
community may help advocates by making them aware that this is something they will have to
work around when developing policies and programs and trying to implement them. The study
will directly benefit the social work profession because it assessed how social work majors felt
about the disabled community versus non-social work majors. Social work professions may look
at the results and be able to modify their teachings about this population to promote more
positive attitudes toward the population of people with disabilities. They may also use the
information to teach acceptance and help non-social work majors become more comfortable with
the disabled population, since one of the key findings was that social work majors are more
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
20
comfortabl e wo rking with disabled people than non-social work majors.
The goal and hope of project author Andrea Schanz is that professionals may take her
findings and use them in further research about college students ' attitudes toward people with
disabiliti es. Because coll ege students are lea rning and practicing to get ready [u go into the
workforce , which will consist of almost one-fifth of disabled people, they must be aware of the
disabled population and understand how to work with this population, since one of the key
findings was that social work majors are more comfortable working with disabled people than
non-social work majors.
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
21
References
*Adler. P., Cregl;!, M.,
Duignan, A., flett, G., & Woodhouse, M. (2005) . Effects of training on
attitudes and experti se of optometri sts towards people with intellectual disabilities.
Ophthalmology Physiology, 25. 10.5 -118.
*Au, K .W., & Man, D .W.K. (2006). Attitudes toward people with disabiliti es: A comparison
between health care professionals and students. International Journal of Rehabilitation
Research, 29(2), 155-160.
Barr, J. , & Bracchitta, K . (2008). Effects of contact with individuals with disabilities: Positive
attitudes and majoring in education. Journal of Psychology [electronic version], 142(3),
225-244.
Broderick, A ., Mehta-Parekh, H. , & Reid, D. (2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled
students in inclusive classrooms. Theory Into Practice [electronic version]. 44(3), 194202. doi: 10.1207/s 15430421 tip4403 _3.
*Burge, P. , Ouellette-Kuntz, H. , & Lysaght, R. (2007). Public views on employment of people
with intellectual disabilities. Journal o{Vocational Rehabilitation, 26,29-37.
Chambers, E. (2004). An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from The Journal of
Educational Research (1992-2002) . Journal of Educational Research, 98 (1), 35-44.
*Chenoweth, L. , Pryor, J. , Jeon, Y., & Hall-Pullin, L. (2004). Disability-specific preparation
programme plays an important role in shaping students' attitudes towards disablement
and patients with disabilities. Learning in Health and Social Care, 3(2), 83-91.
*Church, W., Baldwin, J., Brannen, D. , & Clements, C. (2009). An exploratory study of social
work students' attitudes toward mentally ill offenders. Best Practices in Mental Health:
An International Journal, 5(2), 29-39.
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
22
Council on Social Work Education (CSW L:) . (2008) . Educational policy and accreditation
standards (EPAS). Retrieved on November 19,2009 from
http: //www.cswe.orgINRIrdonlyres/2A81732E-1776-4175-AC4265974 E96BE66/0/2008Ed ucal iOIli:.! I Pol icya ndAccreditation Slandards. pd f
*Cuskelly, M. , & Bryde, R. (2004) . Attitudes toward the sexuality of adults with an intellectual
disability: Parents, support staff, and a community sample. Journal of Intellectual &
Developmental Disability, 29(3),2 55-264.
*Eack, S. & Newhill, C. (2008). An investigation of the relations between student knowledge,
personal contact, and attitudes toward individuals with schizophrenia. Journal ofSocial
Work Education, 44(3), 77-95.
Evans, D . (2008) . Peter Burke, disability and impairment: Working with children and families.
Journal of Youth & Adolescence, 3 7(8), 1025-1027. doi:l 0.1 007/s 10964-008-9297-4.
Galambos, C. (2004). Social Work Practice with People with Disabilities: Are We Doing
Enough? Health & Social Work, 29(3), 163-165.
*Gilmore, L., Campbell, 1. , & Cuskelly, M. (2003) . Developmental expectation, personality
stereotypes, and attitudes toward inclusive education: Community and teacher views of
Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 50(1) ,
65-76.
*Goddard, L., & Jordan, L. (1998). Changing attitudes about persons with disabilities: effects of
a simulation. Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 30(5),307-313.
*Heenan, D. (2005). Challenging stereotypes surrounding disability and promoting antioppressive practice: Some reflections on teaching social work students in Northern
Ireland. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 24(5),495-510.
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
23
*Hayashi , R., & Kimura, M . (2003). An exploratory stud y on attitudes towards people with
disabiliti es among U.S . and Japanese social work students. Juurnal o(Social Work in
Disability & Rehabilitation. 2(213),65 -8 5.
*Kagawa. K. (n.d.). Attitudes to ward di sab ility: Examining the effects of ed ucation and
employment experience on the attitudes of future social work professionals toward
people with disabilities. Unknovvn , 165-18.
Konstabel , K. , Aavik, T. , & Allik, J . (2006). Social desirability and consensual validity of
personality traits. European Journal of Personality [electronic version] , 20(7), 549-566.
doi : 10.1 002/per.593
*Lifschitz, H. , & Glaubman, R. (2002). Religious and secular students' sense of self-efficacy and
attitudes toward the inclusion of pupils with intellectual di sability and other types of
needs. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 46(5 ),405 -4 18.
Livermore, G. , Goodman, N. , & Wright, D. (2007). Social Security di sability beneficiaries:
Characteristics, work activity, and use of services. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation
[electronic version], 2 7(2), 85-93 .
*McConkey, R. , & Truesdale, M. (2000). Reactions of nurses and therapists in mainstream
health services to contact with people who have learning disabilities. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 32(1), 158-163.
National Association of Social Workers (NASW). (1999). Code of ethics. Retrieved on
November 19, 2009 from http: //www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp
*Newhill, C. , & Korr, W. (2004). Practice with people with severe mental illness: Rewards,
challenges, burdens. Health and Social Work, 29(4), 297-305.
*Nolan, M., & Nolan, J. (1999). Rehabilitation, chronic illness and disability: The missing
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABlLIITES
24
elements in nursing ed ucation . J O Ilf"nO/ of Advonced Nursing 29(4),958-966.
Reust. (2009, October 29). Number of disabled studen ts stead il y increases. Th e Stor Press.
Retrieved from
http ://74.125.95.132/search ?q=cache:up3Xna9D3FU :slClrpl·ess. ball stateimedia.org/2009
! 10129/number-of-disabled-students-steadil y
increases/+num ber+o f+peop Ie+with+di sabi Iities+at+ Ball+ S tate&cd=4&hl =en&ct=clnk
&gl=us
*Schwartz,
c., & Armony-Sivan, R. (2001). Students' attitudes toward the inclusion of people
with disabilities in the community. Disability & Society, 16(3), 403-413 .
*S levin, E., & Sines, D. (1996). Attitudes of nurses in a general hospital towards people with
learning disabilities: Influences of contact, and graduate/non-grad uate status, a
comparative study. Journo! of Advanced Nursing, 24, 111 6-1126.
Stowe, M., Turnbull, H. , Pence, R., Rack, J. , Schrandt, S., & Laub, L. (2007). The importance of
attitudes toward and understanding of disability and science in the age of genetics.
Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities [electronic version], 32(3),
190-206.
*Stromwall, L. (2002). Is social work's door open to people recovering from psychiatric
disabilities? Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 75-83.
*Tervo, R.C. , Palmer, G., & Redinius, P. (2004). Health professional student attitudes toward
people with disability. Clinical rehabilitation, 18, 908-915.
*Thomas, A. (2001). The multidimensional character of biased perceptions of individuals with
disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(2), 3-9.
*Tracy, J., & Graves, P. (1996). Medical students and people with disabilities: A teaching unit
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DIS AB ILII TES
for medica l students ex ploring the impact of disabilit y on the individual and family .
i\!fedica/ Teacher. i 8(2).
van de MorteL T. F. (2008). Faking it: Social desirability response bias in self-report research .
Auslm/ionJourna/ o{Adl'uI/ced Nurs ing [electron ic versonJ. 25(4). 40-48.
Vignes, c., Godeau, E. , Sentenac, M. , Co ley, N., Navarro , F. , Gra ndjean, H. (2009).
Determinants of students' attitudes towards peers with di sabilities. Developmental
Nledicine & Child Neurology [electronic version] , 51(6), 473-479. doi:10.l111/j .1469-
8749.2009.03283.x.
Waldrop, 1. & Stern, S. (2003, March). Disability status: 2000. Retrieved November 1,2009
from United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Brief Web site:
http://www.census .gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf
*Yazbeck. M .. McVilly, K .. & Parmenter, T. (2004). Attitudes toward people with intellectual
disabilities: An Australian perspective. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15(2), 97Ill.
*included in meta-analysi s
25
Running Head : ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABIUITES
Figures
Figure 1: Fo rmul a for Co nve rsion of F-ratio to Effect Size r
ES==
Figure 2: Formula for Conversion of Mean Difference to Effect Size r
r==
1
d2 +pq
p=
Where
and
Figure 3: Formula for Co nversion of t-test to Effect Size r
ES ==1
Figure 4: Formula for Conversion of Odds-ratio to Effect Size r
rcos _,,"
=
cos
18(f
ad
l+~ad
be where odds ratio is = be
q -l-p
26
27
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABlLIITES
Tables
Table 1: Di stribution of Studies by Profession
profession
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative Percent
social work
5
29.4
29.4
29.4
nursing
3
17.6
17.6
47.1
education
4
23.5
23.5
70.6
medicine
2
11 .8
11 .8
82.4
mixed sample
3
17.6
17.6
100.0
17
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 2: Distribution of Studies by Level of Education
level of education
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
undergrad
4
23 .5
23 .5
23.5
grad or doctoral
2
11 .8
11 .8
35.3
mixed sample
11
64 .7
64.7
100.0
Total
17
100.0
100.0
Table 3: Distribution ofIntervention Types
intervention type
Frequ ency
Valid
Missing
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
didactic
6
35.3
66 .7
66.7
experiental
1
5.9
11 .1
77.8
combination intervention
2
11.8
22.2
100.0
Total
9
52.9
100.0
missing or NA
8
47 .1
17
100.0
Running Head: ATTITUDES ABOUT PEOPLE WITH DISABILIITES
Table 4 : N umber of Studies with Randomized Designs
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Val id Percent
Cumu lati ve Percent
yes
2
11 .8
11.8
11 .8
no
15
88.2
88.2
1000
Total
17
1000
1000
Table 5: Number of Studies with Effect Sizes Reported
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative Percent
yes
4
23.5
23.5
23 .5
no
13
76.5
76 .5
100.0
Total
17
100.0
100 .0
Table 6: Number of Studies with Less than 10 Subjects Per Group
Frequency
Valid
yes
no
Total
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
16
94.1
94 .1
94.1
1
5.9
5.9
100.0
17
100.0
100.0
Table 7: Number of Studies that Compared Group Differences
Frequency
Valid
yes
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
6
35.3
35.3
35.3
no
11
64 .7
64.7
100.0
Total
17
100 .0
100.0
Table 8: Distribution of Studies with Rigorous Analysis Methods
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
yes
9
52.9
52.9
52.9
no
8
47.1
47 .1
100.0
17
100.0
100.0
Total
28
Table 9: Studies Reporting Reliability of Instruments
Frequency
Valid
Valid Percent
Percent
Cumulative Percent
yes
10
58.8
58 .8
58.8
no
7
41 .2
41 .2
100.0
17
100.0
100.0
Total
Table 10: Mean Effect Size by Discipline
ES overall
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Lowe r Bound
Upper Bound
Minimum
Maximum
social work
5
.2466
.10322
.04616
.1185
.3748
.12
.36
nursing
3
.4087
.25821
.14908
-.2327
1.0502
25
.71
education
2
.5187
.16360
.11568
-.9512
1.9885
40
.63
medicine
2
.5295
.43911
.3 1050
-3.4158
4.4748
.22
.84
14
.4090
.25864
.0691 3
.2597
.5584
.12
.92
Total
-
--
---
- _ .-
Table 11 : Mean Percentage of Contact with Disab led People by Study Discipline
percent w/disability contact
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Minim um
Maximum
social work
2
.76600000
.23475945 1
.166000000
-1 .34322999
2.87522999
.600000
.932000
nursi ng
3
.44886020
.500103892
.288735117
-.79346674
1.69118714
.024000
1.000000
ed ucation
2
.30571825
.039048911
.027611750
-.04512230
.65655880
.278106
.333330
medicine
2
.86187845
.195333369
.138121550
-.89312224
2.61687914
.723757
1.000000
mixed sample
4
.49644442
.121429036
.060714518
.30322373
.68966512
.333000
.625000
13
.55381167
.301164679
.083528053
.37181968
.024000
1.000000
Total
--
----
--
.73580366
-
- -
----
--