construction and validation of the disability rights attitude scale: … · 2010. 8. 8. ·...

Construction and Validation ofthe Disability Rights Attitude Scale:

Assessing Attitudes Toward the AmericansWith Disabilities Act (ADA)

Brigida Hernandez

Northwestern University

Christopher Keys, Fabricio Balcazar, and Charles Drum

University of Illinois at Chicago

ABSTRACT. The authors constructed and validated an instrument that assesses

attitudes toward the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), a law that protects the

civil rights of individuals with disabilities. The Disability Rights Attitude Scale

(DRAS) demonstrated acceptable reliability and validity with 2 samples of

university students (N — 421). Reliability analysis resulted in Cronbach's alphas of

.91 (Sample 1) and .90 (Sample 2). Principal-components factor analysis indicated

that the DRAS essentially consists of 1 factor that accounted for 27% (Sample 1)

and 31% (Sample 2) of the total variance. Construct validity analysis resulted in

predicted, significant positive correlations with other relevant measures. A stepwise

multiple regression analysis revealed that sex, ethnicity, and prior contact with

people with disabilities were significant predictors of attitudes toward the law. The

DRAS provides a psychometrically sound means of assessing attitudes toward

disability rights that may encourage or impede implementation of the ADA.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA; 1991) of 1990 is the most comprehen-

sive civil rights law for individuals with disabilities to date. Modeled after the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA is intended

to have a significant impact on the working and living environments of those with

disabilities (Johnson & Baldwin, 1993). This law is composed of five titles

designed to remove barriers in the areas of employment (Title I), state and local

government services (Title II), private and public accommodations and services

(Title HI), and telecommunications (Title IV). Title V of the ADA (miscellaneous

provisions) encompasses an array of issues, such as nonprotection for those

actively using illegal drugs. Overall, the ADA aims at fully including individuals

with disabilities in society.

Many individuals are required to comply with the ADA, including employers,

Rehabilitation Psychology. 1998, Vol. 43, No. 3, 203-218Copyright 1998 by the Educational Publishing Foundation, 0090-5550/98/$3.00

203

204 Hernandez, Keys, Bakazar, and Drum

state and local government policy makers, business owners, and providers of

goods and services. Under the act, they may have to remove architectural,

communication, and transportation barriers; modify rules, policies, and proce-

dures; and provide auxiliary aids and services. Success of the ADA is highly

dependent on the actions of these individuals, with some arguing that the success

of the ADA is a function of the public's attitudes toward this law (Watson, 1994;

Wehman, 1993). Public attitudes may pose significant barriers to implementing

the ADA provisions, and thus may constrain the life choices available to

rehabilitation clients. The ADA has been described as the "most disruptive piece

of civil rights legislation in our history" (Mandel, 1989, p. 24). Lindsay (1989)

noted that the law may be viewed as a governmental burden, citing its vaguely

written provisions and broad definition of disabilities. Even the TV news program

20/20 aired a segment against this law, claiming that the law's complexity may

have worsened employment opportunities for those with disabilities (Thrasher,

1996).

Although the relation can be complex, psychological attitudes, in conjunction

with subjective norms, may influence an individual's behavior (Olson & Zanna,

1993). Given the precedents of resistance to implementing the Rehabilitation Act

of 1973 by both the public and state personnel directors (Drum, in press; Scotch,

1984), assessment of attitudes may be helpful to understanding the prevalence and

potential success of ADA implementation activities. Moreover, psychological

attitudes toward disability rights held by people with disabilities, family, friends,

staff, employers, and relevant others may influence the goals and course of

rehabilitation (Wehman, 1993).

Research regarding attitudes toward individuals with disabilities has been

extensive (Wilgosh & Skaret, 1987; Yuker, 1988), dating back to the work of

Strong (1931), who used a checklist to examine these attitudes. Less investigated,

however, are attitudes toward the civil rights of individuals with disabilities

(Drum, in press). Attitudes toward the ADA have received little research attention,

due in part to the recency of the law that was passed in 1990 and its provisions that

are being gradually phased in over time. There is also a lack of psychometrically

sound measures concerning attitudes toward disability rights in general and the

ADAin particular. To date, Satcher and Hendren (1991) and Moore and Crimando

(1995) have developed instruments that target the law. However, validity has not

been reported for either measure.

MEASURES OF ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ADA

Satcher and Hendren (1991) constructed the Americans With Disabilities Act

Survey, a 12-item measure that assesses acceptance of the employment, transpor-

tation, public services and accommodations, and telecommunications provisions

of the ADA. Reliability analysis of this survey yielded a Cronbach's alpha of .85,

with a factor analysis indicating that items loaded on one factor. Acceptance. No

validity information was reported for this measure. Examining predictor vari-

ADA Attitude Scale 205

ables, Satcher and Hendren (1991, 1992) found that sex, type of occupational

setting, prior contact with people with disabilities, and level of educational

attainment did not predict agreement with the ADA among samples of personnel

students and employers.

Moore and Crimando (1995) developed the ADA Employment Inventory, a

29-item measure designed to assess attitudes toward Title I of the ADA. This

measure consists of six conceptually derived subscales that address issues related

to cost, fairness, clarity, practicality, effectiveness, and general attitude toward the

employment provisions. Reliability analysis for each of the instrument's six

subscales yielded Cronbach's alphas exceeding .65 for each subscale. Validity

information for this measure was not reported.

Thus, the primary purpose of this study is to develop a reliable and valid

measure that assesses attitudes concerning the ADA and disability rights. This

article reports the development and psychometric analysis (viz., reliability and

construct validity) of a new measure that assesses attitudes regarding the ADA.

More generally, it taps the extent to which people with disabilities are considered

equal members of society. This measure includes issues specific to the three major

ADA titles: (a) employment, (b) state and local government services, and (c)

access to private and public goods and services, as they are related to individuals

with specific disabilities (e.g., physical, hearing, visual) and people with disabili-

ties in general. Also, demographic and experience variables are examined to

assess the extent to which they predict attitudes toward disability rights. Assess-

ment of such attitudes seems fundamental to understanding attitudinal factors that

may encourage or impede ADA implementation.

METHOD

Sample

Research participants were 421 undergraduate students from two samples

enrolled in introductory psychology courses at an urban university in the midwest.

These students received course credit for their participation. Sample 1 consisted

of 111 women and 104 men, with two individuals not indicating their gender. The

ages of participants ranged from 18 to 30, with 75% of the sample at age 20 or

below. The racial and ethnic composition of Sample 1 was 41.0% White, 21.7%

Latin American, 19.4% Asian American, 6.5% African American, and 8.8% other

ethnic groups. Twelve percent of the participants reported living with a family

member who has a disability, 27% indicated having a friend or family member

(not residing with them) with a disability, and 35% reported knowing someone

(not a friend or family member) with a disability.

Sample 2 consisted of 128 female and 76 male participants, with 98% of the

sample at age 20 or below. The racial and ethnic composition of Sample 2 was

37.3% White, 17.6% Latin American, 28.9% Asian American, 5.9% African

American, 8.8% other ethnic groups, and 1.5% not reporting their ethnicity. Of

206 Hernandez, Keys, Balcazar, and Drum

this sample, 8% reported living with a family member who has a disability, 27%indicated having a friend or family member (not residing with them) with adisability, and 36% reported knowing someone (not a friend or family member)with a disability.

Measures

The Disability Rights Attitude Scale (DRAS) consisted of an initial pool of 34items that were generated following a review of the provisions made under eachof the ADA titles. Items addressed issues related to Titles I, II, and III—those thatare primarily implemented by employers, business owners, managers, and stateand local government officials. Items that tapped general sentiment towarddisability rights were also included. To avoid response-set bias, 18 items werephrased in a positive direction and 16 in a negative direction. For each item, a6-point Likert scale was used, with 1 indicating a strong negative attitude and 6 astrong positive attitude. Thus, the sum of coded responses represented an overallscore of the respondent's attitude toward disability rights. This initial pool ofitems was reviewed for completeness, legal sufficiency, accuracy, and clarity by ateam of ADA and disability experts, including the director of an ADA Disabilityand Business Technical Assistance Center, a representative of the NationalInstitute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, an attorney with ADAexpertise, and two active researchers in the field of disabilities and ADAcompliance.

The Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATPD; Yuker, Block, & Young,1968), a 30-item instrument, assessed global attitudes toward individuals withdisabilities. Respondents indicated the degree to which they agreed or disagreedwith each statement on a 6-point Likert scale. Given that the ATDP and DRASeach measure disability-related attitudes, a strong positive relationship wasexpected and would provide support for convergent and construct validity.

The Community Living Attitude Scale—Mental Retardation Form (CLAS-MR; Henry, Keys, Jopp, & Balcazar, 1996), a 40-item measure, tapped attitudestoward (a) self-advocacy and empowerment of people with mental retardation, (b)the exclusion of individuals with mental retardation from community life, (c) thebelief that these individuals need to be sheltered and protected, and (d) theperceived similarity of people with mental retardation to others. The CLAS-MRsubscales were combined to yield one score. A 5-point Likert scale was used toindicate the extent of agreement or disagreement with each item. Because theCLAS-MR and DRAS target disability-related constructs, a significant positivecorrelation between them was expected and would provide evidence for conver-gent and construct validity.

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (RDS; Rokeach, 1960), a 41-item instrumentwith a 6-point Likert format, assessed traits of rigidity and inflexibility. Given thatthe DRAS tapped attitudes regarding recent civil rights legislation for a popula-tion that historically has been targeted for discrimination, it was expected that


more rigid and inflexible individuals would have less favorable attitudes toward

such a law. Thus, a significant negative relationship between the two measures

was expected.

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965), which is made up of 10

items, assessed feelings about one's self. Respondents used a 4-point Likert scale

to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement. A

nonsignificant relationship between Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale and the

DRAS was expected and would demonstrate divergent validity, given that these

instruments measure seemingly unrelated constructs.

The Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale—Short Version (MC-SDS;

Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972), a 10-item instrument with a true—false format, assessed

the extent to which items are answered in a socially desirable manner. Given the

nature of the DRAS, social desirability could be a confounding variable. There-

fore, if a significant relationship was found between the two measures, the

capacity of the DRAS to assess attitudes toward the ADA without the undue

influence of social desirability could be called into question.

A demographic information questionnaire was used to gather data regarding

age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, education, college major,

occupation, and approximate household income. Respondents indicated whether

they have a family member, relative, friend, or acquaintance with a disability.

They also reported any prior work experience in the disabilities field.

Procedures

Participants of Sample 1 (N = 217) completed the preliminary 34-item version

of the DRAS, along with the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale, the

Community Living Attitude Scale-Mental Retardation Form, Rokeach's Dogma-

tism Scale, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale, Marlowe-Crowne's Social Desirabil-

ity Scale, and the demographic information questionnaire. After the DRAS'

reliability was established with Sample 1, Sample 2 participants (N = 204)

completed the final 27-item version of the DRAS, the Community Living Attitude

Scale-Mental Retardation Form, and the demographic information questionnaire.

Measures were administered in supervised group settings of approximately 25

participants.

RESULTS

Item Selection and Exploratory Factor Analysis

Table 1 displays the items, their means, their standard deviations, their

exploratory factor loadings, and their correlations with the overall scale without

that item (for Sample 1). The disability rights or ADA content of each item is also

noted.

Overall, attitudes were positive with an average item mean of 4.58 out of a


G_ga

1a•a

o

Sic•5aoJ

o

C3a.

oe0

"E.x

Wt/TC

'§

Q"2

1C/len"C

S3<O

e S

cale

Ite

ms,

T3

ity

Rig

hts

Att

i

his

Co

nte

nt

— • tji^s• S3 >^0 S

XI

^H t«

s °EH §

£

1 co

1 1g "uQJ H

a oo

£^S 1-. Ml

2 2 .5O O T3

t'3 1a

Q

•<

61±H

H-

—P

Tj

0M3

OS

O

u-i

s2i

13

o

1>3

2

eelc

hai

rs s

hou

jaS

per

son

s u

sin

g

<s*230

-O

3U

—

« « «

P [3 j3

5 3S

^ SO O

^- rf Oi— ' —- T—i

• " mm'

-^ cDH £2c3 U

i StS "g

1 1n "ra 13

* « 1

H ^ .s2 Ifs s ^g) g_ 2

1 5 |"3 ^ u•^ 2 o

P 2 " °•a .2 o r--3 -o ^ is

M J § «

§ ^"1 1 -in £ c '— Cy W u <! CJ

CN rn Tf

"2ca

^

№

"°

n-i

^4

•t'

^

_g

i_>> s

1 i.<£ "

ing

an e

lev

ato

r

wit

h d

isab

ilit

il

"3 f=

es,

even

if

insi

port

s fo

r p

erst

S 3"§ ^•- ^ °^ > 1,-y C ,

is . ?

in

13

B

O

s

in

^

=0

0

v-i

r*

1

^s

^2

3

<u

ph

ysi

call

y ac

e

^

y of

fice

s m

ust

'§

• ^3 3

5 n: m

-&

11 S

-S 2 •*=>° o p . •*=>

|tll||!ll

ll lu 2 -3


e'cc

rH

wSfS

s 1S •£a §

»"3 §o -3Y «S ~QJ ti

HH o

s -2 >-, ocS 2 .3O y 13

•Q, 14-1 §

ta ""

Sw.

S<LJ

1So

>o

ON• f

rn

•— <

•^J-Tf

feST3 -S

|^

I 1

An i

nd

ivid

ual

wit

h a

his

tory

of

trea

tmen

t fo

r a

psy

chi

should

not

be

pro

tect

ed b

y f

eder

al l

aws

(lik

e t

he

Am

e

abil

itie

s A

ct).

"

r-i

HH

ID•3

P

••t

IO

•*r^^r^•*

-S "2« S

||

•a -aS ^

It i

s ac

cepta

ble

for

an e

mp

loy

er t

o d

edu

ct t

he

cost

of

;

wit

h fl

ash

ing

lights

fro

m t

he

sala

ry o

f an

em

plo

yee

w

nee

ds

it."

2

B

13

P

E

_

^o

-,^"

Ov

^

1

Sd.

|

Sta

te u

nem

plo

ym

ent

form

s sh

ould

be

avai

lable

in

Bra

alte

rnat

e fo

rms

for

per

sons

wit

h d

isab

ilit

ies.

Tt

B13

P

s

• j-"£>

0~-"

01

•*

I

S3 ..-£i S2

C/i -G

P "i

Dep

artm

ent

store

s sh

ould

not

hav

e to

chan

ge

thei

r la

y

rack

s in

ord

er t

o a

llow

acc

ess

to h

ldiv

idu

als

who u

se

u-i

afU

•SP

rl

oo

ooO

01

ri

o

>*v

1c

o

Cit

y h

alls

wit

h m

ore

than

one f

loor s

hould

be

requir

ec

in o

rder

to

mak

e th

em m

ore

ac

cess

ible

.

2

1=1<Ug

^

3

*oen

OJ

••— <

f-

*

£

f,u

o

I

Indiv

iduals

who

use

wheelc

hair

s sh

ould

not

be e

nco

u:

r--

tran

sport

atio

n."

3>^

P

O

\O«0

ON

O

CN

f \

,

1C3

L»

I

Ele

vat

ors

should

be

avai

lable

in

all

shoppin

g c

ente

rs,

tions,

and a

irport

ter

min

als

wit

h tw

o o

r m

ore

lev

els.

oo

"2So

m

oo" |

(N

'-•

Tt

"*

"a

'iw

11

Peo

ple

wit

h d

isab

ilit

ies

should

get

hel

p f

rom

fri

end

s,

n(

s•S

" 1*^3

^1

^

ON

( 1

-*

O

^

„

•H

serv

ice a

gencie

s, n

ot

the l

aw.8

It i

s bett

er

for

bu

sin

ess

es

to h

ire p

eople

wit

ho

ut

dis

ab

o


.1

1

4)

3&

si2 a

u

3§s isB "3S 1"

o

2 § £?-38"°

tS ~Q33

'S

Ea

B

p

GOTf

*O

fT.

(-1

(N

-t

•D

1

13

03

*o

C

O

1

u

10

i11o1a

s

_,

P

oo

«

rtr-^

ON

Tf

O

1

>

ca

for

lice

nse

d d

river

s w

ho c

annot

use

foot

ped

als.

Putt

ing

in r

amps

to s

tate

and

loca

l g

ov

ern

men

t buil

din

gs

ii

S

B

P

r~i

^

VO•*.

—•

00

•*

E/)

"SW

^

taxpay

er m

oney

,*If

a m

enu i

n B

rail

le is

not

avai

lable

at

a re

stau

rant,

the

ser

cs

read

the

men

u t

o c

ust

om

ers

who a

re b

lind.

P

CO

QQIT}

Tf

^

t~

"*

S -.

73 S

!«1-8

A p

rivat

e em

plo

yer

sho

uld

hav

e th

e ri

ght

to r

efus

e to

hir

e i

dis

abil

itie

s ev

en t

hough

the

y m

ay b

e th

e m

ost

qual

ifie

d to

tM

B

P

t--cn

t

fS

'-H

~<

•*

Of)

"1J8-5's

Sig

n l

anguag

e in

terp

rete

rs s

houl

d b

e av

aila

ble

for

per

sons

impai

rmen

ts w

hen

they

are

purc

has

ing

new

car

s.

r-J

<u

P

»/i"~i

o

«*-•^o•*

•1§•

'3>C2

ai

Tel

ecom

mun

icat

ions

dev

ices

for

indiv

idual

s w

ith

sev

ere

h

S

ii

I,

e

men

ts (

e.g., p

ort

able

tex

t te

leph

ones

) sh

ould

be

avai

lable

ibu

sine

sses

, go

vern

men

t of

fice

s, a

nd

pub

lic

libra

ries

.

•g

ON

2>

p

^o<n

i «"G ,S o

1 I"

Peo

ple

wit

h di

sabi

lities

des

erve

fed

eral

leg

isla

tion

lik

e th

eW

ith

Dis

abilitie

s A

ct t

o g

uar

ante

e th

eir

fair

tre

atm

ent

by

e

(N

<«

- i1 'S1 g

6 =

slw

ng p

osit

ive

alti

tude

exp

ress

ed;

i =

str

ong

nega

tive

att

itud

e ex

t

se it

ems

wer

e re

vers

e sc

ored

so

that

hig

her

num

bers

wou

ld in

dica

te p

osili

*" J3

1 f


maximum of 6. Individual item variance was relatively homogenous with a range

of 0.8 to 1.4. An exploratory, principal components factor analysis conducted on

the initial 34-item version of the DRAS resulted in eight factors producing

eigenvalues greater than 1. The top principal component accounted for 27% of the

total variance, with the remaining components explaining minimal additional

variance. A scree-plot examination of the factors also indicated the appropriate-

ness of a one-factor interpretation of the DRAS. Scale refinement and reliability

assessment consisted of calculating Cronbach's alpha, a measure of internal

consistency. Items that did not contribute to the factor's overall reliability were

eliminated.

This procedure resulted in a 27-item version of the DRAS, with a Cronbach's

alpha of .91. Seven items relate to Title I, 8 to Title II, 9 to Title III, and 4 to

disability rights in general. Eleven items specify a kind of disability, including

emotional, hearing, visual, and physical impairments. Sixteen items are phrased

positively and 11 negatively. Reliability analysis of the final 27-item version of

the DRAS administered to Sample 2 participants yielded a Cronbach's alpha of

.90. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the 27 items loaded primarily on

one factor that accounted for 31% of the total variance.

Construct Validity

Table 2 presents the correlations (for Sample 1) between the DRAS and the

Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale, the Community Living Attitude Scale—

Mental Retardation Form, Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Rosenberg's Self-Esteem

Scale, and the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. As predicted, the

DRAS correlated positively with the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale,

r(207) = .61, p < .001, and the Community Living Attitude Scale—Mental

Retardation Form, r(209) = .64, p < .001. A significant positive correlation

between the DRAS and the Community Living Attitude Scale—Mental Retarda-

Table 2. Correlation Coefficients Between Disability Rights Attitude Scale

(DRAS), Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons (ATDP), Community Living

Attitudes Scale—Mental Retardation (CLAS-MR), Rosenberg's Self-Esteem

Scale (RSES), Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale (RDS) and the Marlowe-Crowne

Social Desirability Scale (MC-SDS; Sample 1)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. DRAS

2. ATDP

3. CLAS-MR

4. RSES

5. RDS

6. MC-SDS

.61***

.64***

-.06

-.12

.01

—

.63***

-.15

-.35***

.05

—

.01_ 24***

-.03

—

.17 —

-.05 -.10 —

***/><.001.

212 Hernandez,, Keys, Balcazar, and Drum

tion Form was also obtained with Sample 2, r(193) = .61, p < .001. Also as

expected, the DRAS did not correlate with Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale or the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. As expected, the DRAS correlated

negatively with Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale; however, this correlation was not

statistically significant.

Demographic Analysis

Mean DRAS scores (and their standard deviations) for female and male

participants of Sample 1 were 132.7 (15.8) and 125.1 (16.4), respectively, with a (

test revealing a significant difference between them, f(213) = 3.48, p < .001. A

parallel significant sex difference was also found with Sample 2, r(202) = 5.64,

p < .001, with women and men obtaining mean DRAS scores (and their standard

deviations) of 133.6 (15.6) and 120.81 (16.1), respectively. For both samples,

mean DRAS scores by ethnicity were significantly different, F(3, 191) = 9.38,

p < .05 (Sample I), and F(3, 182) = 7.13, p < .05 (Sample 2). Tukey post hoc

analyses revealed that Asian Americans in both samples obtained significantly

lower DRAS mean scores in comparison to their counterparts from other ethnic

groups (see Table 3).

For Sample 2, mean DRAS scores (and their standard deviations) for partici-

pants who reported prior contact with people with disabilities and those without

such experience were 132.3 (15.2) and 123.6 (18.1), respectively, with a t test

revealing a significant difference between them, r(202) = 3.69, p < .001. More

specifically, a t test indicated that participants with a friend with a disability

obtained significantly higher mean DRAS scores than those without a friend with

a disability, f(201) = 2.97, p < .05. In addition, participants with an acquaintance

with a disability achieved higher mean DRAS scores than those without an

Table 3. Mean Disability Rights Attitude Scale Scores of Ethnic Groups

Ethnic group

Whites

African Americans

Latin Americans

Asian Americans

Whites

African Americans

Latin Americans

Asian Americans

N

Sample 1

89

14

47

42

Sample 2

76

12

36

59

M

131.02

138.79

134.34

119.48

131.99

140.33

132.14

121.93

SD

17.0

12.4

15.5

12.4*

16.2

10.9

15.8

16.8*

Note. Those indicating membership in another ethnic group or not indicating membership in an

ethnic group fSample I, n = 25; Sample 2,« = 21) were not included.

*/><.05.


acquaintance with a disability, ((200) = 2.69, p < .05. Table 4 displays mean

DRAS scores (and their standard deviations) for Sample 2 participants given their

prior contact with persons with disabilities. There were no significant differences

for such scores of Sample 1 participants.

A stepwise multiple regression analysis was used to determine whether

demographic variables predicted attitudes toward the ADA (see Table 5). Indepen-

dent variables found to be significantly related to attitudes toward disability rights

either singly (e.g., sex) or in combination with other variables (e.g., as part of the

prior contact variable) were included. Using forced entry of these 11 relevant

independent variables (sex; African American, Asian American, Latin American,

and White ethnicity; present work experience in the disability field; past work

experience in the disability field; immediate family member with a disability;

friend or relative with a disability; acquaintance with a disability; and self with a

disability), a stepwise multiple regression analysis indicated that for Sample 1,

Asian Americans accounted for the largest amount of the DRAS's variance,

followed by sex (males). Together, these independent variables accounted for

12% of the variance. For Sample 2, sex (males) accounted for the largest amount

of the DRAS's variance, followed by Asian American ethnicity, prior contact with

Table 4. Mean Disability Rights Attitudes Scale Scores of Participants With

and Without Prior Contact With Persons With Disabilities (Sample 2)

Type of contact N M SO

Overall prior contact with persons with

disabilities 123 132.3 15.2***

No overall prior contact with persons with

disabilities 81 123.6 18.1

Prior work experience 20 134.20 14.2

Without prior work experience 180 128.08 17.0

Present work experience 8 130.50 16.7

Without present work experience 195 128.64 16.9

Immediate family member contact 16 129.00 15.7

Without immediate family member contact 186 128.77 17.1

Friend or relative contact 54 134.59 14.4*

Without friend or relative contact 149 126.76 17.3

Acquaintance contact 73 132.89 15.4*

Without acquaintance contact 129 126.34 17.3

Participants who have a disability 0

*p<.05. ***p<.001.


Table 5. Stepwise Multiple Regression Results

Predictor

variable

Asian American

Sex

Sex

Asian American

Acquaintance

Friend/Relative

African American

B

Sample 1

-11.57

-7.01

Sample 2

-11.94

-7.45

3.55

5.38

10.06

P

-.27

-.21

-.34

-.20

.16

.14

.14

R2 change

08****

04***

j^***#

06***

.03**

.01*

.02*

Note. For Sample l.R= .36; cumulative fi2 = .13; adjusted cumulative R2 = .12. For Sample 2, R

-.51; cumulative V?2 — .26; adjusted cumulative R2 — .25.

*/><.05. **/j<.01. ***/><.001. **""*;;<.0001.

an acquaintance with a disability, prior contact with a friend with a disability, and

African American ethnicity. As a group, these independent variables accounted

for 25% of the variance.

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to construct and validate an instrument that assesses

attitudes toward disability rights primarily as addressed by the provisions under

the main titles of the Americans With Disabilities Act and to examine demo-

graphic and experience-based predictors of attitudes toward disability rights.

First, an internally consistent, 27-item version of the Disability Rights Attitude

Scale was developed using two samples of university students. Exploratory and

confirmatory factor analyses indicated the presence of one factor (Attitude

Toward the ADA). This one-factor finding suggests that the respondents viewed

disability rights as a unitary concept. Taken together, the consistent results of

these factor analyses and the correlation alpha analyses for both samples indicate

that the DRAS has high internal consistency and thus can be expected to be a

reliable measure.

Correlations between the DRAS and the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons

Scale, the Community Living Attitude Scale—Mental Retardation Form, and

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale support both the convergent and divergent con-

struct validity of this new instrument. The DRAS's nonsignificant correlation with

Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale was somewhat surprising given (a) Rokeach's

Dogmatism Scale's significant and negative relationships with the Attitudes

Toward Disabled Persons Scale and the Community Living Attitude Scale-Mental


Retardation Form, and (b) the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale's and

Community Living Attitude Scale-Mental Retardation Form's significant positive

relationships with the DRAS. Apparently, traits of rigidity and inflexibility are

more strongly and negatively related to attitudes toward individuals witfi disabili-

ties than to attitudes toward legislation intended to protect their rights. In other

words, when considering a law on disability rights, dogmatic individuals may

recognize its legitimacy or may perceive the need to accept it, thus attenuating the

impact of their negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Additionally,

the DRAS's nonsignificant correlation with Marlowe-Crowne's Social Desirabil-

ity Scale—Short Version suggests that this new measure is relatively unaffected

by the influence of social desirability. Given the strong supports for convergent

and divergent validity and the relative lack of influence from social desirability,

the DRAS appears to be a valid and reliable measure of one's attitude toward the

ADA, and thus reflects an advance over previously available scales in this area.

Second, demographic analyses indicate that sex, ethnicity, and prior contact

with people with disabilities are significant predictors of attitudes toward disabil-

ity rights. Men obtained significantly lower DRAS mean scores in comparison to

women for both samples. This finding is consistent with results from other

research (Aloia, Knutson, Minner, & Von Seggern, 1980; Fonosch & Schwab,

1981; Smith, Edwards, Heinemann, & Geist, 1985) in which women expressed

more positive attitudes toward people with disabilities than men. In addition,

Asian Americans from both Samples 1 and 2 obtained significantly lower DRAS

mean scores than their counterparts, suggesting that they may have less favorable

views toward the ADA than Whites, Latin Americans, or African Americans.

However, this finding, previously unreported in the literature, warrants further

exploration rather than generalization, given the small sample sizes for Asian

Americans, the use of university students, and the wide variety of nationalities

and cultures within this broad category. In contrast, African American ethnicity

(Sample 2) was a significant predictor of positive attitudes toward disability

rights. This finding also merits further research prior to generalization due to the

small number of African American participants. Finally, respondents with friends

and acquaintances with a disability (Sample 2) expressed more positive attitudes

toward disability rights than their counterparts. These findings are somewhat

consistent with Wilgosh and Skaret's (1987) review of the literature, which

indicated that prior positive experience with people with disabilities impacted

favorably on employer attitudes. Again, larger sample sizes for the other groups

having prior contact with individuals with disabilities (e.g., immediate family

members, work experience in the disability field) might have resulted in addi-

tional significant findings.

These research participants, from an urban university campus, represent a

more demographically diverse cross-section of contemporary American society

than most other college student samples. Nonetheless, future investigations are

needed to ascertain the generalizability of these findings to individuals beyond

college age, such as community leaders, private sector representatives, and other

ADA-relevant groups. Moreover, building on the present demographic findings,


future research could fruitfully consider the relationship between attitudes toward

disability rights and age, culture, socioeconomic status, education, and business

experience (Greenwood & Johnson, 1987). Furthermore, it would also be of value

to consider the extent to which attitudes toward disability rights vary across

disability type. For instance, Greenwood and Johnson (1987) found that individu-

als with physical or sensory disabilities were viewed more positively than those

with cognitive or emotional disabilities.

The DRAS represents a psychometrically sound attitude measure that can

further disability rights research. Future studies should examine the relationship

between attitudes toward disability rights and behavior that supports or limits the

exercise of those rights. This research can build a knowledge base concerning

such attitude-behavior relations for advocates, professionals, people with disabili-

ties, family members, and researchers. Such findings will help determine the

external validity of the DRAS, namely, the extent to which the DRAS is

meaningfully related to other presumably relevant psychological phenomena. For

example, attitudes toward disability rights may be an important contextual

variable in psychological rehabilitation. The DRAS may be used to assess the

attitudes of professionals, friends, and family members and the relevance of these

attitudes to the course and outcome of rehabilitation.

More generally, given the diversity of public attitudes toward persons with

disabilities, it is expected that attitudes toward their civil rights will be disparate

as well. The DRAS provides a means to examine such opinions and beliefs

empirically. This information may be particularly useful in gathering baseline

data from those who are impacted by the law yet are not highly involved with

disability and rehabilitation issues (e.g., employers, state and local government

officials, business owners, and providers of goods and services). Assessment of

such attitudes may indicate the need for information dissemination and awareness

training on disability rights. Data collected with the DRAS may also be helpful

when designing intervention programs and evaluating the effectiveness of ADA

educational campaigns and training (Suarez-Balcazar, Balcazar, & Keys, 1997).

Furthermore, assessing attitudes of the public and private sectors may enhance the

understanding of the prevalence and impact of ADA implementation activities

(Drum, in press). Advocates, professionals, and researchers can use this informa-

tion to build public support for including people with disabilities as full partici-

pants in employment, government, and public accommodations. As people with

disabilities become more fully included in local communities and American

society, all people benefit from the increase in perspective, energy, and talent.

REFERENCES

Aloia, G. F., ICnutson, R., Minner, S. H., & Von Seggern, M. (1980). Physical

education teachers' initial perceptions of handicapped children. Mental

Retardation, 18, 87-87.


Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, §2, 104 Stat. 328

(1991).

Drum, C. E. (in press). The social construction of personnel policy: Implications

for people with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.

Fonosch, G., & Schwab, L. (1981). Attitudes of selected university faculty

members toward disabled students. Journal of College Student Personnel,

22, 229-235.

Greenwood, R., & Johnson, V. A. (1987). Employer perspectives on workers with

disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53, 37-45.

Henry, D., Keys, C., Jopp, D., & Balcazar, F. (1996). The Community Living

Attitudes Scale, Mental Retardation Form: Development and psychometric

properties. Mental Retardation, 34, 149-158.

Johnson, W. G., & Baldwin, M. (1993). The Americans With Disabilities Act: Will

it make a difference? Policy Studies Journal, 21, 775-788.

Lindsay, R. (1989). Discrimination against the disabled: The impact of the new

federal legislation. Employment Relations Law Journal, 15, 333-345.

Mandel, S. (1989). Disabling America. National Review, 41, 49-55.

Moore, T. J., & Crimando, W. (1995). Attitudes toward Title I of the Americans

with Disabilities Act. Rehabilitation Counseling Bullentin, 38, 232-247.

Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual

Review of Psychology, 44, 117-154.

Rokeach, M. M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

Satcher, J., & Hendren, G. R. (1991). Acceptance of the Americans With

Disabilities Act of 1990 by persons preparing to enter the business field.

Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 22, 15—18.

Satcher, J., & Hendren, G. R. (1992). Employer agreement with the Americans

With Disabilities Act of 1990. Journal of Rehabilitation, 58, 13-17.

Scotch, R. (1984). From good will to civil rights: Transforming federal disability

policy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Smith, C., Edwards, J., Heinemann, A., & Geist, C. (1985). Attitudes toward and

performance evaluations of workers with disabilities. Journal of Applied

Rehabilitation Counseling, 16, 39^11.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychol-

ogy, 28, 191-193.

Strong, E. K. (1931). Change of interest with age. Stanford, CA: Stanford

University Press.

Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Balcazar, F. E., & Keys, C. B. (1997). A self-help guide for

ADA awareness and action planning. Chicago: University of Illinois at

Chicago, Institute on Disability & Human Development.

Thrasher, D. K. (Producer). (1996, July 16). Getting in on the Act. In 20/20. New

York: American Broadcasting Company.

Watson, S. D. (1994). Applying theory to practice: A prospective and prescriptive


analysis of the implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Journal of Disability and Policy Studies, 5, 1-24.

Wehman, P. (1993). Employment opportunities and career development. In P.

Wehman (Ed.), The ADA mandate for social change (pp. 45-68). Balti-

more: Brookes.

Wilgosh, L., & Skaret, D. (1987). Employer attitudes toward hiring individuals

with disabilities: A review of the recent literature. Canadian Journal of

Rehabilitation, 1, 89-98.

Yuker, H. E. (1988). Attitudes toward persons with disabilities. New York:

Springer.

Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Young, J. H. (1968). Measurement of attitudes

toward disabled persons. Alberston, NY: Human Resources Center.

Acknowledgments. We appreciate the assistance of John Vessey, Robin Jones, Kevin

Weslock, Joseph DePhillips, Richard Contreras, Mayra Nava, and the Psychology Depart-

ment and the Department of Disability and Human Development at the University of

Illinois at Chicago. The National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

(NIDRR) provided partial funding for this project (Grant #2-533366). The opinions

expressed here are ours and not necessarily those of NIDRR.

Offprints. Requests for offprints should be directed to Christopher Keys, PhD, Psychol-

ogy Department and Department of Disability and Human Development, Mail Code 285,

University of Illinois, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, Illinois 60607.

Submitted: May 1997

Accepted: January 1998

construction and validation of the disability rights attitude scale: … · 2010. 8. 8. ·...

Documents