Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kenneth Hergenrather
The George Washington
University
Scott Rhodes
Wake Forest University School
of Medicine
The Disability Social Relations Generalized Disability (DSRGD) Scale was used to
explore the influence of the social context on attitudes toward persons with disabilities. The DSRGD Scale was based on the Disability Social Relationship (DSR) Scale
(Grand, Bernier, & Strohmer, 1982; Strohmer, Grand, & Purcell, 1984). A sample of
1,013 undergraduate students completed the DSRGD. Principal axis factoring yielded
three factors representing the three contextual subscales of Dating, Marriage, and Work.
The study findings identified a significant effect of context on attitudes toward persons
with disabilities. A significant effect of gender across social context was identified, with
females scoring higher than males on the subscales of Dating, Marriage, and Work.
67
DISABILITY SOCIAL
R ELATIONSHIP SCALE
Grand, Bernier, and Strohmer (1982) developed the Disability Social Relationship (DSR) Scale to test the hypothesis that social context affects attitudes toward
persons with disabilities. The DSR consists of three 6-item
social relationship subscales identified as Dating, Marriage, and Work. Each of the 18 subscale items was written to address the four disabilities of amputation, visual
impairment, cerebral palsy, and epilepsy. Among a sample
of 191 university faculty/staff, statistically significant correlations were identified between the subscales. Results
suggested significant main effects for social situation (F =
44.80, p < .001). Internal consistency measures of reliability for the DSR total scale and subscales ranged from
.85 to .95. Strohmer, Grand, and Purcell (1984) further
explored the DSR Scale through a replication study of
214 university faculty/staff. They found significant main
effects for social situation (F = 9.30, p < .001), suggesting
that attitudes differ in varying social situations. Gordon,
Minnes, and Holden (1990) explored the factor structure
of the DSR Scale with 259 undergraduate students across
the aforementioned four disabilities. A principal components analysis yielded a nine-factor solution. The proportion of variance explained was 54.4%. Statistically
significant differences were found between the three social relationship subscales. Results suggested a main effect
for social situation F(2, 216) = 44.89, p < .001, suggesting
that attitudes differ in varying social contexts. Although
Gordon et al. (1990) explored the factor structure of the
DSR Scale by social relationship subscales, across disabilities the interpretation of the three DSR subscales has not
been explored for empirical validation. These studies suggest the necessity of examining the DSR subscales factor
structure across generalized disability to identify the summated scales for the subscales of Dating, Marriage, and
Work.
68
M ETHOD
The study used a descriptive factor analysis with confirmatory elements. A deductive research approach was
used, providing a direct and narrow focus, analyses by
construct, and higher validity and resulting in meaningful
measures (Burisch, 1984; Vogt, 1999).
Instrument
The DSRGD is an anonymous paper-and-pencil 18-item
instrument. In producing the DSRGD, the authors used
the three 6-item subscales (Dating, Marriage, and Work)
of the DSR, altering the items to reflect general disability
rather than specific disability. They also replaced the
Thurstone two-response scaling with a Likert scale, a
commonly used attitude measure in social sciences that is
comparatively easy to construct, is appropriate for attitude
measurement across more than one dimension, and has
higher reliability (Vogt, 1999). The DSRGD was validated by two expert panels: (a) four Rehabilitation Counseling Program faculty experienced in counseling persons
with disabilities and (b) three Public Health Behavioral
Science Department faculty experienced in attitudinal
and behavioral measurement. The instrument was piloted
with 15 undergraduate students majoring in rehabilitation
services. Based on the recommendations of the expert
panel review and pilot study, consensus was found and
subsequent recommended changes were made. The study
was approved by the universitys Institutional Review
Board.
The DSRGD includes three subscales representing
Dating, Marriage, and Work across general disability.
Each scale contains six items, evaluated using a 4-point
Procedure
The authors conducted a 30-minute training for 37 thirdand fourth-year undergraduate students majoring in public rehabilitation services and enrolled in a rehabilitation
Participants
The study population was a convenience sample of undergraduate students enrolled at a large university in the
southern United States. Selection criteria consisted of
being (a) an undergraduate student and (b) currently enrolled in coursework at the university. Of the 1,297
students given the DSRGD, a total of 1,013 (78.1%) completed the survey. Participant characteristics included a
mean age of 22.1 years; 610 (60.2%) were women; 893
(88.2%) were Caucasians; 99 (9.8%) were African Americans; 7 (0.7%) were Latino/Hispanics; 5 (0.5%) were Asian
American/Pacific Islanders; 4 (0.4%) were Native Americans; 2 (0.2%) identified themselves as Other; 37 (3.6%)
identified themselves as a person with a disability; 985
(97.7%) reported social interaction with a person with a
disability; 190 (18.8%) reported completing 12 years of
education; 232 (22.9%) completed 1 year of college; 286
(28.2%) completed 2 years of college; and 252 (24.9%)
completed 3 years of college.
Analyses
Analyses were conducted using SPSS, Version 11.0
(SPSS, 2002). Based on the structure of the DSRGD, a
factor analysis was conducted. The principal axis factoring
69
R ESULTS
Construct Validation
Four statistical criteria were applied to determine the
number of factors to extract: the absolute magnitude of
eigenvalues of factors greater than 1, the percentage of
variance explained by the factor solution to exceed 60%,
the Thurstone recommendation of at least three items per
factor, and the interpretation of the scree plot. A conservative factor loading criterion was set at .40, which is considered significant in sample sizes greater than 200 (Hair
et al., 1998; Maxwell, Cole, Arvey, & Salas, 1993; Kim &
Mueller, 1978; Nunnely, 1970). In the final rotated factor
matrix of the 18 items, 17 of the items appropriately
loaded on three factors representing the three subscales
(see Table 1). The factors were supported by the visual interpretation of the scree test (Cattell, 1966). The three
factors accounted for 63.77% of the total variance, with
eigenvalues greater than 1. This supported the percentage
of variance criteria established by the authors to ensure
practical significance of the derived factors. The factor
loading exceeded .60, indicating the practical significance
of the factor loadings to explain more than 36% of the
variance. The three-factor solution was identified by the
factors of Dating, Marriage, and Work. The variances explained by Dating, Marriage, and Work were 39.97%,
14.05%, and 9.75%, respectively. The sampling adequacy
index was .88, interpreted as meritorious (Hair et al.,
1998).
The first factor, Dating, was a summated scale of six
items representing the DSR Dating subscale. The second
factor, Marriage, was a summated scale of the six items
representing the DSR Marriage subscale. The third factor,
Work, was a summated scale of five of the six items representing the DSR Work subscale; the item addressing the
consideration of used words during conversation did not load.
The summated scales were strongly associated with each
other, and inter-item correlations were statistically significant. The Dating, Marriage, and Work summated scales
represented dimensionality and confirmed the DSR subscales. Among the means of the summated scales, Work
(M = 3.17, SD = .55) was highest, Marriage (M = 3.07,
SD = .53) was intermediate, and Dating (M = 2.82, SD =
70
.465
2. When dating a person with a disability, I would not feel uncomfortable if people would stare.
.854
3. In dating a person with a disability, I would not worry what others think.
.932
4. When dating a person with a disability, I would not be embarrassed to help the person eat in
public.
.963
5. When dating a person with a disability, I would be willing to have a sexual relationship with
him or her.
.950
6. When dating a person with a disability, I would not find sex or physical contact with him or
her embarrassing.
.696
.796
.690
.679
10. In marriage to a person with a disability, I would feel comfortable making love to my partner.
.631
11. In marriage to a person with a disability, my partner would be able to earn an adequate income.
.616
12. In marriage to a person with a disability, a partner would take full responsibility as a parent.
.530
14. In the workplace, I would have a close relationship with a co-worker who has a disability.
.444
15. In the workplace, I would not expect a co-worker with a disability to require extra help and
attention that would disrupt normal activities.
.806
16. In the workplace, I would be comfortable eating lunch with a co-worker who has a disability.
.872
17. In the workplace, I would be comfortable socializing with a co-worker who has a disability.
.766
18. In the workplace, I would be surprised if a co-worker with a disability fell behind in his or
her work.
.478
.72) was lowest. During data entry, it was noted that 107
(10.5%) surveys contained comments in the margin of the
Dating scale, next to the question addressing sexual relationships while dating. The authors identified these comments as stating that sexual relations were only acceptable
within a committed relationship (e.g., marriage, civil
ceremony, civil union).
Two internal consistency estimates of reliability were
computed for the DSRGD: Cronbachs alpha and a splithalf reliability expressed as a Spearman-Brown corrected
correlation. Based on Loevinger (1954) criteria, Cronbachs alpha was reported as excellent for the DSRGD
(.89), excellent for the Dating summated scale (.92), good
for the Marriage summated scale (.83), and good for the
Work summated scale (.81). Statistically significant correlations were determined between the Dating and the
Marriage summated scales (rs = .47, p < .01), between the
Dating and Work summated scales (rs = .32, p < .01), and
between the Marriage and Work summated scales (rs =
Factors Discriminating
Between Groups
Students t tests were conducted, using Levenes test, to
investigate factors discriminating between gender, age,
71
and race/ethnicity. Because of low sample sizes, comparisons between two sets of groups could not be conducted
between persons having interaction (n = 985) and persons
having no interaction with a person with a disability (n = 23),
and between persons with a disability (n = 37) and persons
without a disability (n = 976). Because of small sample sizes,
only the race/ethnicity groups of Caucasian (n = 893) and
African American (n = 99) were compared. For the purpose of analysis, the variable age was collapsed into two
groups based on a sample mean of 22.1 years, consisting of
18 to 22 years of age (n = 651) and 23 to 60 years of age
(n = 361). No statistically significant differences were
found with race/ethnicity or age.
Statistically significant differences were identified
between women (n = 610) and men (n = 403), implying
more positive attitudes among women across context.
Women reported a higher score on the total DSRGD
scale (M = 52.54, SD = 7.30) than men (M = 49.28,
SD = 8.46), t(938) = 6.26, p < .001; a higher score on the
Dating summated scale (M = 17.51, SD = 4.20) than men
(M = 16.17, SD = 4.42), t(984) = 3.53, p < .001; a higher
score on the Marriage summated scale (M = 18.77, SD =
2.89) than men (M = 17.93, SD = 3.47), t(967) = 4.74,
p < .001; and a higher score on the Work summated scale
(M = 16.17, SD = 2.64) than men (M = 15.26, SD = .58),
t(985) = 5.04, p < .001. Statistically significant differences
were found on 13 of 17 items. No significant differences
were found on Items 1, 6, 9, and 11. See Table 2.
In accordance with the analyses used by Grand et al.
(1982), Strohmer et al. (1984), and Gordon et al. (1990),
DISCUSSION
In this study, the factor structure of the DSRGD was examined to explore the influence of social context on attitudes toward persons with disabilities. The study extends
beyond a single measurement attitude scale to identify the
effect of the social contexts of dating, marriage, and work
among 1,013 undergraduate students. Although the authors limited their focus to undergraduate students, the
study findings supported a three-construct model, aligning with the DSR subscales. The final 17-item version of
the DSRGD Scale presented adequate psychometric properties. The components had high internal consistency,
represented by a Cronbachs alpha of .89. Each of the summated scales of Dating, Marriage, and Work had good or
excellent reliability, represented dimensionality, and con-
Women (n = 610)
Men (n = 403)
Dating factor
1 (reverse-scored)
2
3
4
5
6
3.13
2.95
2.87
2.78
2.71
2.55
3.15
3.06
2.98
2.89
2.81
2.58
3.10
2.76
2.69
2.60
2.54
2.50
0.37
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**
0.19
Marriage factor
7
8
9
10
11
12
3.31
3.39
2.68
3.10
2.66
3.35
3.37
3.44
2.71
3.16
2.67
3.42
3.20
3.31
2.62
2.99
2.62
3.23
0.00**
0.01*
0.09
0.00**
0.27
0.00**
Work factor
14
15
16
17
18
2.61
3.32
3.21
3.11
3.56
2.55
3.42
3.29
3.20
3.63
2.65
3.18
3.09
2.96
3.46
0.04*
0.00**
0.00**
0.00**
0.01*
72
similar to persons without disabilities. Statistically significant differences were identified with gender. Female students reported a more positive attitude than male
students. This is consistent with the findings of Gordon
et al. (1990). The effect was similar across all summated
scales. Research findings have supported gender as a variable that influences attitudes toward persons with disabilities. Positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities
have been correlated with female gender (Antonak & Livneh, 1988, 2000; Chubon, 1982; Dunn, Umlauf, & Mermis, 1992; Mitchell, Hayes, Gordon, & Wallis, 1984; Paris,
1993; Yuker & Block, 1986). Women have been reported
to have greater empathy toward others, including persons
with disabilities (Jones & Stone, 1995; Livneh, 1982).
Several studies have found that among college students,
women have more favorable attitudes toward persons with
disabilities than do men (Makas, Finnerty-Fried, Sigafoos,
& Reiss, 1988; Royal & Roberts, 1987; Stovall & Sedlacek, 1983). Chen, Brodwin, Cardosa, and Chan (2002)
found that attitudes of undergraduate students toward persons with disability varied by gender and the social contexts of dating and marriage; women held more positive
attitudes than men. As men deviate from roles they identify as masculine, they become concerned with the perceptions of others and less comfortable interacting with
persons with disabilities (Baffi, Redican, Sefchick, & Impara, 1991; McCreary, 1994). Women have reported less
discomfort than men when interacting with persons with
disabilities. Men with disabilities have reported that
women who are nondisabled seek their friendship and relationships because they are perceived as being less sexual
in the relationship and are considered safe (Shakespeare, 1999; Tepper, 1999).
Among study participants, 107 (10.6%) wrote comments on the survey addressing disapproval of sexual
intercourse outside of committed relationships. The comments were written in the margins of two survey items:
(a) When dating a person with a disability, I would
be willing to have a sexual relationship with him or her and
(b) When dating a person with a disability, I would not find
sex or physical contact embarrassing with him or her. The
comments suggest a prevailing cultural or social norm
among college students in the southern United States.
Widmer, Treas, and Newcomb (1998) reported that in a
24-country study addressing adult attitudes toward nonmarital sex, nonmarital sex was reported as Always
wrong by 29% of U.S. respondents and 17% of respondents across all countries. However, Kahn et al. (2000) reported that among 142 undergraduate students, 86% of
the women and 88% of the men engaged in nonmarital
sex with a person for whom they perceived no commitment. Lambert, Kahn, and Apple (2003) reported that in
a sample of 264 undergraduate students, 77.7% of women
and 84.2% of men engaged in nonmarital sex without per-
sonal future commitment. This observation further supports the impact of attitude measurement within social
context and needs further exploration.
Limitations
The study findings must be interpreted within limitations.
First, although the sample was representative of the population from which it was drawn, it appeared to be homogeneous. Therefore, it is limited in its representation of
persons with disabilities, African Americans, Asian
American/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic/Latino Americans,
and American Indian/Alaskan Americans despite the fact
that students from these underrepresented groups were actively recruited to be study participants. Caution should
be taken in making generalizations beyond the study population. Although the findings support positive attitudes
toward persons with disabilities by undergraduate students, further research is needed. Second, self-report measures may have been biased by social desirability concerns
or faking good, which may not translate into actual behaviors (Streiner & Norman, 1995). Third, the structure
of the DSRGD was explored with one disability scale that
generalized all disabilities. This may have misrepresented
participants attitudes toward specific disabilities. Further
studies could apply the subscales across the most frequent
disabilities (e.g., orthopedic, mental illness, nonorthopedic physical, mental retardation) reported among
consumers of public vocational rehabilitation services
(Rehabilitation Services Administration, 2002). Fourth,
the measurement of social interaction was operationalized
by a dichotomous variable that did not specify the type of
interaction, frequency of interaction, or interaction by social situation, therefore possibly masking the hypothesized
relationship between social interaction and contextual attitude. In some cases a person may interact daily and extensively with a person with a disability, whereas others
may have or had limited interaction in the past. The measure should address frequency and type of interaction with
a person with a disability within the specific contexts of
dating, marriage, and work. A Likert scale, a commonly
used attitude measure in social sciences and comparatively easy to construct, would be appropriate for attitude
measurement across more than one dimension and has
higher reliability (Vogt, 1999). With respect to the limitations, study findings suggest the benefit of further exploration of the influence of social context and gender
effect on attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
CONCLUSION
Through the application of the DSRGD, the results of the
factor analysis confirmed the findings of several authors
73
Kenneth C. Hergenrather, PhD, CRC, is an assistant professor of rehabilitation counseling in the Department of Counseling, Human, and Organizational Studies and the Center
for Rehabilitation Counseling Research and Education, The
George Washington University. Scott D. Rhodes, PhD,
CHES, is an assistant professor of social sciences and health
policy in the Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake
Forest University School of Medicine. Address: Kenneth C.
Hergenrather, Department of Counseling, Human, and Organizational Studies, Graduate School of Education and
Human Development, The George Washington University,
2134 G St. NW., Rm. 318, Washington, DC 20037; e-mail:
hergenkc@gwu.edu.
REFERENCES
All, A. C., Fried, J. H., Ritcher, J. M., Shaw, D. G., & Roberto, K. A.
(1997). The effect of HIV/AIDS education on the anxiety of rehabilitation workers. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 4552.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitude, personality and behaviour. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press. New York: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 2758.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitude and normative beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 19.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
74
tion of the attitudes of medical students to physically disabled people. Medical Education, 18, 2123.
Mullins, J., Roessler, R., Schriner, K., Brown, P., & Bellini, J. (1997).
Improving employment outcomes through quality rehabilitation
counseling. Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 2132.
Nunnely, T. (1970). Introduction to psychological measurement. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Paris, M. J. (1993). Attitudes of medical students and health professionals towards people with disabilities. Archives of Physical Medicine
and Rehabilitation, 74, 818825.
Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and
analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pittam, J., & Gallois, C. (2000). Malevolence, stigma, and social distance: Maximizing intergroup differences in HIV/AIDS discourse.
Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(1), 2443.
Rehabilitation Services Administration. (2002). Longitudinal study of
the vocational rehabilitation services program: Implications for practice.
Washington, DC: RSA.
Royal, G., & Roberts, M. (1987). Students perceptions of and attitudes
toward disabilities. North American Journal of Psychology, 1, 255
260.
Rusch, F., Wilson, P., Hughes, C., & Heal, L. (1995). Interaction of persons with severe mental retardation and their non-disabled coworkers in integrated work settings. Behavior Modification, 19, 59
77.
Schriner, K., Greenwood, R., & Johnson, V. (1989). Counselor perceptions of employer concerns about workers with disabilities and employer-rehabilitation partnerships. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin,
33, 140150.
Shakespeare, T. (1999). The sexual politics of disabled masculinity. Sexuality and Disability, 17(1), 5364.
Siller, J. (1976). Attitudes toward disability. In H. Rusalem & D. Malikin (Eds.), Contemporary vocational rehabilitation (pp. 6779). New
York: New York University Press.
Smart, J. (2002). Disability, society, and the individual. Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
SPSS. (2002). Base 11.0 applications guide [Computer software].
Chicago: SPSS Inc.
75
Stovall, C., & Sedlacek, W. (1983). Attitudes of male and female university students toward students with different physical disabilities.
College Student Personnel, 26, 325330.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement scales: A
practical guide to their development and use (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Strohmer, D. C., Grand, S. A., & Purcell, M. J. (1984). Attitudes
toward persons with a disability: An examination of demographic
factors, social context, and specific disability. Rehabilitation Psychology, 29(3), 131145.
Shuman, H., & Johnson, M. P. (1976). Attitude and behavior. Annual
Review of Sociology, 2, 161207.
Tepper, M. S. (1999). Letting go of restrictive notions of manhood:
Male sexuality, disability, and chronic illness. Sexuality and Disability, 17(1), 3752.
Tervo, R. C., Palmer, G., & Redinius, P. (2004). Health professional
student attitudes towards people with disability. Clinical Rehabilitation, 18, 908915.
Velicer, W., & Jackson, D. (1990). Component analysis versus common
factor analysis: Some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 128.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of statistics & methodology (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Watson-Armstrong, L. A., ORourke, B., & Schatzien, J. (1994). Sexual abuse and persons with disabilities: A call for awareness. Journal
of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 25(1), 3642.
Widmer, E., Treas, J., & Newcomb, R. (1998). Attitudes toward nonmarital sex in 24 countries. Journal of Sex Research, 35(4), 349358.
Wong, D. W., Chan, F., Cardoso, E. D., Lam, C. S., & Miller, S. M.
(2004). Rehabilitation counseling students attitudes toward people
with disabilities in three social contexts: A conjoint analysis. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 47(4), 194204.
Yuker, H., & Block, J. (1986). Research with the Attitude Toward Disabled
Persons Scales (ATDP). Hempstead, NY: Hofstra University, Center
for the Study of Attitudes Toward Persons with Disability.