See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232505034

Direct and indirect methods to

measure attitudes toward
persons with disabilities, with
an exegesis of the error-choice
test method

Article in Rehabilitation Psychology January 1995

DOI: 10.1037/0090-5550.40.1.3

CITATIONS READS

35 805

2 authors, including:

Hanoch Livneh
Portland State University
113 PUBLICATIONS 2,057 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hanoch Livneh on 29 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Direct and Indirect Methods to Measure
Attitudes Toward Persons With Disabilities,
With an Exegesis of
the Error-Choice Test Method
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Richard F. Antonak
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Hanoch Livneh
Portland State University

ABSTRACT. Methods to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities can

be divided into direct and indirect methods. Nine direct methods are discussed,
all of which are limited by threats to the validity of the resultant data. A discussion
of four indirect methods follows with an exegesis of a unique disguised method:
the error-choice test method. Indirect methods should be useful for the inves-
tigation of attitudes toward persons with disabilities, particularly among
service providers whose responses to a direct method may be biased by
respondent sensitization, response styles, and reactive effects.

Although reviews of recent research have revealed a gradual improvement

in attitudes toward and increased knowledge about persons with disabilities
(Home, 1985; Jones, 1984; Yuker, 1988), the acceptance and integration of
persons with disabilities continue to be limited by the negative attitudes,
misconceptions, and prejudicial stereotypes of health professionals, employ-
ers, coworkers, educators, peers, and neighbors (Antonak, Fiedler, & Mulick,
1989; Holmes & McWilliams, 1981; Livneh, 1984; Merkens, Perrin, Perrin, &
Gerrity, 1989). The usefulness of even well-designed and well-executed research
in this domain, however, is dependent upon the data obtained, and that, in turn,
is dependent upon the quality of the method selected to operationalize attitudes
toward persons with disabilities. Without assurance of the psychometric
soundness of the method and freedom of the obtained data from respondent

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY Vol. 40, No. 1, 1995

1995 by the Division of Rehabilitation Psychology of the American Psychological Association
Published by Springer Publishing Company, Inc., 536 Broadway, New York, NY 10012
 4 Antonak and Livneh

biases, confidence in the conclusions of attitude research may be unjustified

(Antonak & Livneh, 1988). This article begins with a description of nine
traditional methods to measure attitudes and the limitations of these methods.
This is followed by a discussion of four unique methods that hold promise for
overcoming these limitations. In order to point out how these methods can be
used to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities, the article presents
an exegesis of the error-choice test method and provides principles for the
development of an error-choice test.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

ATTITUDE MEASUREMENT METHODS

Attitude measurement is an attempt to convert observations of a person's

behavior toward a referent into an index representing the presence, strength,
and direction of the attitude presumed to underlie the behavior. The researcher
selects a measurement method reflecting assumptions about the respondent's
internal state, the referent toward which the respondent directs his or her
behavior, and the relationship between the respondent's internal state and the
external behavior, as well as the parameters of the research situation, such as
cost, time, and availability of respondents (Antonak & Livneh, 1991). Experts
generally divide methods to measure attitudes into direct and indirect methods
(Lemon, 1973).

DIRECTMETHODS TO MEASURE ATTITUDES

Direct methods are those in which the respondents are either informed that
their attitudes are being measured or are made aware of it by the nature of the
attitude measurement technique. It is assumed that the respondent and the
researcher view the experimental task similarly and have attached the same
meaning and significance to the response that is requested (Scott, 1968). Nine
direct methods are most often used by researchers studying attitudes (Dawes
&Smith, 1985;Horne, 1980). Examples of several of these methods are provided
in Table 1.

Opinion Surveys

Opinion surveys ask respondents to express in writing their beliefs, atti-

tudes, feelings, or intentions toward a referent by responding to a written list
of questions presented in an individual or group situation, or by mail. In a
structured opinion survey, the survey form may ask the respondents to select
one among a small set of possible responses, and may provide an option for the
respondents to add other comments. In variants of this method, the respondents
 Methods to Measure Attitudes

Table 1. Examples of Direct Methods to Measure Attitudes Toward Persons

with Disabilities.
A. Ranking
Please rank the following impairments in order according to the extent to which you think
they are disabling to persons with the impairment Use 1 for the most disabling, 2 for
the nest most disabling, 3 for the next most disabling, and 4 for the least disabling.

cancer blindness epilepsy diabetes

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

B. Adjective Checklist
Below is a list of adjctives. Read these adjectives quickly and put a check mark next to
each one you consider to be descriptive of persons with spina bifida. Work quickly and
do not spend too much time thinking about any one adjective.
active cautios distrustful) excitable gentle
impulsive lazy meek nervous pleasant
quick reliable talkative unkind weak

C. Paired Comparisons
Each item below presents two possible impairments. Please read each pair and circle the
impairment that you believe is the more disabling to persons with the impairment. Judge
each pair separately.
1. (a) polio 2. (a) epilepsy 3. (a) polio
(b) epilepsy (b) blindness (b) blindness

D. Semantic Differential Scales

Please indicate your perception of the concept of mental illness by placing a check on
one of the seven spaces on each of the continua presented below.
MENTAL ILLNESS
good : : : : : : bad
slow : : : : : : fast
weak : : : : : : strong

E. Summated Rating Scale

The statements below express opinions or ideas about persons with mental retardation.
Read each statement carefully ad circle the one response that best corresponds to how
you feel about the statement. You should work as rapidly as you can.
KEY
SD: I Strongly Disagree D: I Disagree A: I Agree SA: I Strongly Agree
1. The child who is mentally retarded should be integrated SD D A SA
into regular classes in school.
2. I would allow my child to attend a brithday party given SD D A SA
for a child with mental retardation.
3. A Sunday school teacher has the right to decide whether SD D A SA
to let a child with mental retardation enter his or her class.
4. Persons with mental retardation sometimes imagine they SD D A SA
have been discriminated against even when they have
been treated fairly.
 Antonak and Livneh

Table 1. (continued)

F. Social Distance Scale

For each of the impairments listed below, select the one level of social contact that
expresses your feelings of personal-group distance and mark the appropriate space.
Please provide your first reaction in every case. React to each impairment as a group.
Do not give you reaction to the best or worst members of the group that you have known
or can imagine.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Would Would Would Would Would Would Would

marry have as have as work in have as have as debar
into group close next same speaking visitors from my
group friends door office acquaint- only nation
neighbor ances to my
only nation

Blindness
Amputation
Hemophilia

may be asked to select those responses in a list with which they agree or those
that they endorse. An unstructured opinion survey permits the respondents to
provide not only a response but also a justification or explanation for the
response. Caruso and Hodapp (1988) used an open-ended opinion survey to
investigate the differences in undergraduates' perceptions of persons with
mental retardation and persons with mental illness. Linkowski, Jaques, and Gaier
(1969) used an unstructured opinion survey in which the respondents were
asked to list those disabilities they considered to be the most and least severe,
and the basis for their opinions.

Interviews

Interviews require direct verbal interaction between the researcher and the
respondent. The interview may take place by phone or may be conducted by
trained field assistants in face-to-face encounters. Structured interviews, simi-
lar to structured opinion surveys, are organized according to a fixed set of
questions of various types, called the interview protocol or schedule. The
protocol may allow the researcher to omit certain questions in the sequence
depending on the response to an earlier question, or to ask more detailed
questions to investigate a particular response. In an unstructured interview, the
researcher is free to explore the responses in ways that presumably will
contribute insight to the question being investigated. Salend and Giek (1988)
used phone and in-person interviews to explore landlord's experiences renting
to persons with mental retardation. A comprehensive study of the educational
 Methods to Measure A ttitudes '

and residential consequences of community placement for institutionalized

children illustrates several interview techniques (Mallory &Herrick, 1987).

Sociometrics

Sociometric techniques are designed to uncover how a person behaves or

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

intends to behave toward a referent when given a choice of behaviors. It is

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

important that the types of choices offered are typical choices for the situation
and that respondents believe that their choices may have consequences for the
referent or for themselves. If not, then the respondents' stated intentions will
differ little from a self-report questionnaire. For example, students may be asked
to select those classmates with whom they wish to play or eat lunch. A selection
of a student with a disability can be used to operationalize the nondisabled
students' attitudes. Sociometric techniques have been widely used with a
variety of response modes and a variety of respondent groups to determine
which variables influence the acceptance of persons with disabilities (Altman,
1981; Gottlieb, 1975;MacMillan&Morrison, 1984).

Rankings

Ranking methods require the respondent to arrange a small set of terms or

statements (typically 20 or fewer) into an ordered sequence according to some
specified criterion so that only one item is assigned to each of the ordinal
positions (see Table 1, Part A). Ranking methods have been used frequently to
compare various groups of respondents on their attitudes toward persons with
disabilities (Abroms& Kodera, 1979; Orlansky, 1979). Because ranking methods
can use formats other than paper and pencil responses, they may be suitable for
young respondents and for respondents who may not be able to read or to record
their rankings in writing. For example, Richardson, Goodman, Hastorf, and
Dornbusch (1961) used a set of drawings of children with various types and
levels of physical disabilities (e.g., a child seated in a wheelchair, or an obese
child) to study the attitudes of handicapped and nonhandicappcd young
children of various races and religions.

Adjective Checklists

The original 300-item Adjective Check List (ACL) was constructed by Gough
(1960) for the investigation of personality and self-concept. Factor and cluster
analytic investigations led other researchers to derive scales from the ACL,
presumably measuring unique characteristics such as achievement, autonomy,
self-confidence, and personal adjustment. The ACL has been used for the
 8 Antonak and Livneh

measurement of attitudes toward persons with disabilities by selecting a subset

of items, arranging them alphabetically, and asking respondents to select those
that they feel characterize the referents (see Table 1, Part B). A review of earlier
research using adjective checklists to measure attitudes toward children with
mental retardation is provided by Gottlieb, Corman, and Curci (1984). Recent
example's include a study of the reactions of students with mental retardation
to their peers (Altman & Lewis, 1990), and an investigation of the reactions of
undergraduate students to persons with physical and speech disabilities
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(Anderson & Antonak, 1992).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Paired-Comparison Scales

The method of paired comparisons requires the researcher to provide respon-

dents with all possible pairs of the referents that the researcher wishes to scale.
The respondents are asked to select the referent in each pair that they would rate
higher in terms of a criterion presented by the researcher (see Table 1, Part G).
Typically all possible pairs are presented twice, the second time in reverse order,
to determine the consistency of the respondents' selections. A hierarchy of
acceptability of the referents can be obtained from the resultant data. Janicki
(1970) used paired-comparison dyads to investigate the attitudes of hospital
employees to 12 different disability groups. Wicas and Carluccio( 1971) inves-
tigated the attitudes of counselors toward persons with cultural differences,
histories of incarceration, and histories of mental illness in each of 25 different
situations (e.g., employability, trust).

Semantic Differential Scales

With the semantic differential method (Osgood, Suci, &Tannenbaum, 1957),

a single referent is presented on the top of a page and is followed by a set of from
7 to 20 scales anchored at each end by bipolar adjectives connected by a line
marked in intervals. Respondents are asked to mark the point that represents
their rating of the concept on each scale (see Table 1, Part D). In Osgood et al. 's
(1957) original work, three clusters of scales emerged regularly from analyses of
an original set of 50 scales. They termed these evaluative, potency, and activity
scales. Other researchers have derived other dimensions in addition to these
three using different scales and different concepts. Ratings can be related to
respondents' characteristics, compared before and after some intervention
(Sadlick & Penta, 1975; Stude, 1973), or compared across referents (Panda &
Bartel, 1972). Another example is the study of Colin (1970) in which the attitudes
of groups of respondents' were compared after they read a fictitious story that
varied in the amount and favorability of the information about persons with
disabilities the story contained.
 Methods to Measure Attitudes 9

Summated Rating Scales

The most widely known and used of the direct attitude measurement methods
is the summated rating scale method developed by Likert (1932). This was not,
however, the first of the rating scale methods. In fact, Likert proposed his
method as a way of constructing reliable rating scales while avoiding the
statistical assumptions that are required by the consensual location (or equal-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

appearing interval) method proposed by Thurstone (1928). In Likert's model,

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

items are selected from the universe of items characterizing the referent, and the
respondents are asked to indicate the extent of their agreement with each item
by selecting one response from a small set of responses. Numerical weights are
assigned to each response category with the highest value reserved for the
response category representing the most positive attitude. Item responses are
summed to yield an overall attitude score for each respondent (see Table 1, Part
E). Antonak and Livneh (1988) provide a detailed discussion of the psychomet-
ric requirements of summated rating scales and examples of 22 scales to measure
attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

Social Distance Scales

Bogardus (1933) used a modified version of Thurstone's (1928) consensual

location scaling method to refine some earlier work (Bogardus, 1925) and
developed what is now referred to as a social distance scale. The scale consists
of seven equal-appearing intervals that the respondent is asked to consider with
reference to one or more attitude referents (see Table 1, Part F). The average
social distances for different referents can be used to create a hierarchy, or the
data from different respondent groups to different referents can be analyzed to
answer various research questions. Example of the use of social distance scales
to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities are the studies by Tringo
(1970), Home (1978), and Harasymiw, Home, and Lewis (1976).

LBVUTATIONSOFDIRECTMETHODS

Although there is considerable diversity among these direct methods, all arc
subject to certain systematic errors that threaten the validity of the obtained
data as a measure of attitudes and may lead the researcher to erroneous
conclusions. Respondent sensitization occurs when the mere process of re-
sponding to an instrument creates a transient attitude that the researcher
erroneously interprets as reflecting a typical or more stable attitude (Triandis,
1971; Welch & Walberg, 1970). For example, the researcher may wish to measure
attitudes toward persons with an uncommon physical or psychiatric impairment.
A set of domain-representative items is written that appears to meet the
 10 Antonak and Livneh

requirements for a reliable and valid attitude scale. This scale is then adminis-
tered to a group of naive respondents who have little or no knowledge of and
no particular disposition toward the attitude referent. Analyses of these spu-
rious data may lead to an elaborate, but erroneous, description of the attitudes
toward the referent group.
Response styles are personality attributes of the respondent that exert
nonpurposeful distorting influences on his or her professed attitudes (Rorer,
1965). The halo effect refers to the tendency to rate similarly items that the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

respondent perceives to be related, even though objective data do not support

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

such a correlated response (Thorndike, Cunningham, Thorndike, & Hagen,

1991). For example, a respondent who thinks that people who are friendly are also
generous will rate an attitude referent similarly on both traits. The respondent
demonstrates an acquiescence response style when all, or almost all, of the items
are answered affirmatively (or negatively) (Couch & Kenniston, 1960); a mid-
point response style when he or she attempts to find a "place to hide" on the
response scaleby selecting only the middle or neutral value (if one is provided);
an extreme response style when only the endpoints of the response continuum
are selected; and a deviation response style when he or she tends to give
unusual or uncommon responses (Nunnally, 1978).
Reactivity involves the purposeful modification or distortion of privately
held attitudes by a respondent who is aware that his or her attitudes are being
measured (Crowne& Marlowe, 1964; Edwards, 1957; Nederhof, 1985;Oskamp,
1991;Thorndikeetal., 1991). Thisawareness may ariseeven when the researcher
does not inform the respondents that they are participating in an attitude
measurement study; namely, from an inadvertent use of a descriptive phrase in
the label or directions of the measurement instrument, from prior knowledge of
the researcher's interest in attitudes toward a particular group, from being asked
to respond to the instrument in a previous investigation, or from talking to a
friend who previously participated in the study. The response distortion may
be an effort to: (a) help the researcher by providing a response that he or she
thinks will confirm the researcher's hypothesis (the experimenter demand
effect); (b) give the impression of himself or herself as an open-minded,
sophisticated, or enlightened person by second-guessing how such people
would respond to the items (the evaluation apprehension effect, faking good);
(c) grant the attitude referent the benefit of the doubt when asked to make
evaluative judgments (the generosity effect); (d) deny socially undesirable traits
by endorsing only those statements that he or she believes represent the
socially appropriate or culturally sanctioned response (the social desirability
bias); or (e) subvert the study by purposefully disclosing inaccurate attitudes
(the sabotage effect, faking bad). In addition, the respondent may: (f)fail to give
discerning responses because of a lack of motivation or interest in the measure-
ment task (the thoroughness effect); or (g) refuse to provide responses out of
reluctance to share private feelings or for fear of revealing nontypical views of
the referent (the refusal bias).
 Methods to Measure A ttitudes 11

INDIRECT METHODS TO MEASURE ATTITUDES

To obviate threats to the validity of attitude data, a set of indirect measure-

ment methods is available to the researcher that Kidder and Campbell (1970)
characterized as admirably ingenious. In contrast to the direct methods, indirect
methods yield responses that are not taken literally. Rather, the respondent's
performance on an overt and seemingly straightforward objective task is
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

thought to unconsciously reveal latent psychosocial constructs that are inter-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

preted as attitude. Indirect methods can be organized into four categories:

physiological methods, nonobtrusive behavioral observations, projective tech-
niques, and disguised procedures (Campbell, 1950; Mueller, 1986; Webb,
Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966; Weschler&Bernberg, 1950).

Physiological Methods

Physiological methods (Cacioppo, Petty, Losch, & Kim, 1986; Cialdini, Petty,
& Cacioppo, 1981; Mueller, 1970) purport to measure attitudes by measuring
reactions over which the respondent has little or no conscious or voluntary
control. Among the indices used in attitude measurement are those regulated
by the autonomic nervous system, such as galvanic skin response, pupillary
dilation, heart rate, finger-pulse volume, blood pressure, perspiration, saliva-
tion, blinking, electromyogram, electroencephalogram, and voice pattern. The
magnitude of the physiological reaction is assumed to be directly and positively
associated with the extent of the autonomic arousal or the intensity of the
underlying attitude (McGuire, 1985). The direction of the corresponding atti-
tude (e.g., pleasurable or unpleasurable, favorable or unfavorable) can not be
assumed with clarity (Scott, 1968), although it is often inferred that the greater
the magnitude of the emotional arousal the more unfavorable the attitude (Cook
& Selltiz, 1964). Examples from the disability studies literature include the
research by Wesolowski and Deichman (1980), Kleck, Ono, and Hastorf (1966),
Zych and Bolton (1972), VanderKolk (1976a, 1976b), and Gargiulo and Yonker
(1983).

Nonobtrusive Behavioral Observations

Nonobtrusive behavioral observations include those in which the respon-

dent unknowingly or voluntarily engages in a specific behavior in a natural
setting (e.g., helps a person with a disability, donates money to a charity
organization serving persons with a particular disability), and those in which the
respondent agrees to participate in a role playing exercise where he or she is to
simulate a real-life situation (Webb et al., 1966). Examples of innovative research
 12 Antonak and Livneh

using behavioral observations in natural settings include those by Samerotte

and Harris (1976), who studied interactions with a confederate in a shopping
center, and by Willis, Feldman, and Ruble (1977), who studied non handicapped
children's charitable behavior. Examples of simulation experiments include
those by Katz and associates (Katz, Glass, Lucido, & Farber, 1977; Katz, Katz,
& Cohen, 1976) who studied face-to-face interactions between persons with and
without disabilities.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Projective Techniques

Projective techniques involve the presentation of unstructured or ambigu-

ous stimuli or tasks that will elicit responses or feelings of which the respondent
may be unaware (Rabin, 1981). Because the probability of conscious response
distortion is considerably lessened, the respondent is expected to project his
or her true attitudes onto the measurement task. This projection is then
interpreted by a clinically trained professional. Projective techniques can be
classified by the type of task or stimuli presented or, alternatively, by the type
of response that is elicited (Lindzey, 1959). Associations require the subject to
respond with the first thing that comes to mind at the presentation of a stimulus
(e.g., the Rorschach test). Constructions focus on the output produced by the
subject, such as a story or a picture (e.g., the TAT). Completions require the
respondent to finish a sentence, story, or picture as he or she wishes (Loevinger,
Wessler, & Redmore, 1970). Choices or orderings require the subject to choose
from among several alternative colors, designs, or objects (e.g., dolls) those that
appear most relevant, correct, attractive, or otherwise personally gratifying
(Pushkin, 1967; Walker, 1973). Expressions, similar to constructions, require the
subject to form a product out of raw material, although the emphasis is on the
manner in which the respondent does this and not on the product formed (e. g.,
role-play or psychodrama techniques). While projective techniques have been
used for the investigation of psychological adjustment to a variety of impair-
ments (Plummer, 1976; Shontz, 1971), they have been used infrequently for the
measurement of attitudes toward persons with disabilities.

Disguised Procedures

Disguised procedures include those in which the respondent is: (a) unclear
about the real purpose of the investigation, (b) led to believe that no control can
be exerted over his or her responses, or (c) duped into believing that the purpose
of the investigation is other than what it actually is. These disguised procedures
differ from the projective techniques in several respects (Dawes & Smith, 1985).
First, there is an inherent structure to the taskto be performed by the respondent.
Second, a deliberate attempt is made to direct the respondent's attention away
 Methods to Measure Attitudes 13

from the attitude for which measurement is being sought. Finally, whereas
projective techniques assume the operation of certain psychodynamic (mainly
ego defensive) processes as the basis for the respondent's reaction, the
disguised procedures make no such assumption.
The researcher using a task with no clear purpose may provide a random
sample of photographs of persons differing in gender, age, race, disability, and
other visible characteristics and ask the respondent to select photographs that
belong together, or to sort them into specified groups (e.g., those who are
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

liberals and those who are conservatives). The sorting of the photographs is
thought to reflect the salience in the respondent's attitude structure of the
various characteristics portrayed in the photos (Dawes & Smith, 1985). For
example, if two groups are created, one containing only persons without
disabilities and the other containing persons with disabilities, it may be inferred
that disability, or lack thereof, is the most salient characteristic for that particular
respondent. In the place of photographs, the researcher may ask respondents'
to sort statements about a referent into positive and negative categories, or to
select among individuals based upon brief case vignettes. For example, to
investigate their willingness to treat alcoholics, Peyton, Chaddick, and Gorsuch
(1980) had social work graduate students select one case vignette in each of six
pairs of vignettes varying by presenting complaint (depression, job problem,
marital problem, welfare problem). One of the vignettes in each pair included an
indicator of an alcoholism problem. Other creative lines of investigation using
tasks with no clear purpose include the lost-letter technique (Milgram, Mann,
&Harter, 1965;Simmons&Zumph, 1983) and the study of respondents humor
preferences (Losco& Epstein, 1975).
The bogus pipeline technique is a lack-of-control disguised procedure that
has been used to study attitudes (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Jones & Sigall,
1971; Quigley-Fernandez & Tedeschi, 1978). In this procedure, the subject
believes that he or she is connected to an ominous looking machine that
measures emotional reactions to questions presented by the experimenter
through the analysis of autonomic responses such as involuntary muscle
movements, skin conductance, or blood pressure. In fact, the machine measures
nothing at all. The hypothesis is that the respondent's answers in this setting
will be a more accurate self-report of attitudes because the respondent does not
want to be second-guessed by the machine (Rajecki, 1990).
Among duping procedures is the memory distortion task in which the
respondent is first shown a picture or asked to read a vignette, and is then
requested to recall specific details, some of which concern persons or events
that were not originally presented (Campbell, 1950). For example, the respondent
may be shown a picture taken of a classroom of young children during free play
and be asked "What was the child who has epilepsy doing?" Similarly, the
respondent may read about a day's events in a vocational training program and
be asked "What activities did the person with cerebral palsy successfully
complete?" when no information pertinent to that question was provided.
 14 Antonak and Livneh

Although these indirect measurement methods hold promise for research on

attitudes toward persons with disabilities, few investigations using them could
be found in the disability studies literature. To increase the likelihood that
disability attitude researchers will consider indirect measurement methods, the
remainder of this article will present an exegesis of one of them namely, the
disguised procedure known as the error-choice test method.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ERROR-CHOICE TEST ATTITUDE

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

MEASUREMENTMETHOD

The foundation for a unique indirect attitude measurement technique is

attributed to a study by Newcomb (1946) of the social attitudes among college
students toward the Spanish Civil War. In addition to a traditional rating scale
measuring attitudes, Newcomb administered a two-part information test con-
sisting of two types of items. On one part werepure information items, requiring
the respondent to recall a specific nameor date. Items on the other part required
a True or False response to statements resembling traditional attitude-rating
scale items. The correlation between scores on the first part of the information
test and scores on the traditional attitude measure (+0.58) was found to be
comparable to the correlation between scores on the second part of the
information test and scores on the traditional attitude measure (+0.60). Newcomb
reasoned that, because correct responses to the information items on the first
portion of the test required knowledge of minutiae, the respondents guessed
frequently, and the direction of their guesses was not purely random. Rather,
due to the respondents' selectivity in retaining information, "the direction of the
guessing is altogether likely to be weighted toward the subject's attitude . . . .
The test tends to become itself an attitude test" (p. 293). Because the test
scores accurately differentiated three groups of students known to differ on
their attitudes, Newcomb concluded that "when in doubt, respondents tend to
answer in the direction consistent with their own attitudesand the more
intense the attitude the more intense this tendency" (p. 295). This observation
was supported by Smith (1947) who observed a tendency for respondents to
choose an answer to a factual question of which they had no information that
was consistent with the direction of their attitude.
The first deliberate attempt to measure attitudes by analyzing the biased
guessing of respondents to items on an information test was by Hammond
(1948). Defining attitude as "a source of energy, or an affective state, capable
of producing error in perception and recall" (p. 38), Hammond designed an
attitude measure represented by a test consisting of what he called error-choice
items, requiring the respondents to select between two incorrect alternatives,
reasoning that the constancy and direction of the respondents' errors repre-
sented a measure of their attitude. In some of these items, the alternatives
represented errors equidistant in opposite directions from the truth that was
 Methods to Measure A ttitudes 1$

determinable; other items, representing controversial issues, offered opposing

answers, but no facts were available to determine the correct response. To
disguise the purpose of the investigation, Hammond included additional items
of generally known information interspersed with the error-choice items, and
emphasized in the directions that the instrument was an objective test of
information. Using two 40-item information tests, one concerning Russia and the
other concerning labor-management relations, Hammond was able to discrimi-
nate between a group of businessmen and a group of union members, with
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

reliabilities of the Russia and labor-management tests of+0.87 and +0.78,

respectively.
A comprehensive survey of the social and behavioral science research
literature since 1948 revealed only 11 studies using the error-choice test method.
In a series of investigations, Weschler(1950a, 1950b, 1950c)validatedHammond's
finding that the method consistently differentiated among groups known to
differ on their attitudes toward labor and management. Kubany's (1953) test
reliably discriminated groups known to differ on their attitude toward National
Health Insurance. Campbell and associates used error-choice tests in their
studies of propaganda effectiveness (Parish & Campbell, 1953), attitudes
toward racial minorities (Rankin & Campbell, 1955), and leadership attitudes
(Campbell &Damarin, 1961). Wilde and colleagues (Wilde & deWit, 1970; Wilde
& Fortuin, 1969) converted a Dutch personality questionnaire to an error-choice
test format. Two exploratory investigations of teachers' attitudes toward the
education of gifted children using the error-choice test method were located
(Buttery, 1978; Jacobs, 1972).
Reluctance to use the error-choice test method may be due, in part, to
questions raised by Weschler (1951) about the ethics of the method. Weschler
(1950c) had earlier used an error-choice test as one of several measures to
discriminate "good" and "poor" labor mediators, using peer ratings as the
criterion for effectiveness. The results of his research subsequently appeared
in an industrial trade publication and were misinterpreted as proof that mediators
were not objective in their resolution of labor disputes. Weschler, although
convinced of the value of the error-choice and other indirect methods for
measuring attitudes, argued against their use, worrying that the technique could
not be kept out of the hands of unscrupulous persons. For example, employers
might use it to discriminate against job applicants with unacceptable attitudes
revealed on a so-called objective information test administered as part of an
application process. In the less intense post-McCarthy era, Kidder and Campbell
(1970) reiterated some of Weschler's concerns about the use of indirect attitude
measurement methods but concluded that, in a well-designed study adhering
to ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects, indirect techniques
such as the error-choice test method should be considered as one part of a
multimethod approach to the measurement of attitudes because of their resis-
tance to validity threats common to traditional direct methods.
 16 A ntonak and Livneh

PRINCIPLES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

AN ERROR-CHOICE TEST

We conclude this article with principles for the development of an error-

choice test to measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities. These prin-
ciples were derived from the pioneering research described previously (Campbell,
1950; Campbell &Damarin, 1961;Hammond, 1948; Kidder& Campbell, 1970;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Weschler, 1950a, 1950b; Weschler&Bernberg, 1950).

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

1. The respondents must view the test as a bona fide objective measure of
knowledge in which a well-informed person could excel, eliminating all appear-
ances of an attitude measurement instrument.
2. Directions for the test should state that there are right and wrong answers
to each question, that the test is difficult, and emphasize the necessity for the
respondents to strive to do their best, to answer as rapidly as possible, and to
guess intelligently on questions to which they do not know the answer because
there is no penalty for guessing.
3. Items should be made very difficult so that respondents with advanced
knowledge of the referent will not discover the absence of correct answers to
the error-choice items. That is, items should inquire about obscure content that
the respondents will have little opportunity to master (truth determinable
items), items for which the truth cannot be determined from available data (truth
indeterminable factual items), or items representing controversial issues (truth
indeterminable-controversial items).
4. Four alternatives should be used with the distance of the incorrect
alternatives from the truth representing varying intensity of favorableness or
unfavorableness toward the attitude referent.
5. To disguise further the true purpose of the test, it should include with the
error-choice items a set of factual items capable of bei ng answered correctly from
general knowledge for which the correct answer is supplied (general knowledge
items).
6. The scoring keys for the error-choice and the general knowledge items
should be validated by experts in fields related to the attitude referent.
7. The fi nal version of the test should contain a total of approximately 40 items,
half of them error-choice items of the three types to measure attitudes and half
of them general knowledge items to disguise the purpose of the test, with the
various types of items randomly interspersed throughout.
To illustrate these principles, Table 2 presents error-choice sample directions
for an error-choice test that can be adapted to measure attitudes toward various
groups of persons with disabilities and examples of error-choice test items taken
from two i nstruments that are currently available (Antonak, 1994; Antonak &
Livneh, 1995).
 Methods to Measure Attitudes 17

Table 2. Sample Directions for an Error-Choice Test and Examples of the Four
Types of Error-Chouce Test Items.

TEST OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT

Directions
This is a test of our knowledge about . The questions on this test are taken from
the findings of scientific research. You are not expected to have read the research reports,
but by using your experience and general knowledge you will be able to pick the correct
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

answer to many of these questions. Some people will do much better than others on this
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

test because of their experience or because of their training in medicine, rehabilitation,

special education, or psychology. Read each question carefully and select the one
alternative that you consider to be the correct answer. Select an answer for every
question, even if you are uncertain of the correct answer. THERE IS NO PENALTY FOR
GUESSING. There is no time limit for the completion of this test, but you should work
as rapidly as you can.

Error-Choice Item: Truth Determinable

Among personw with epilepsy whose seizures are medically controlled, the
unemployment rate is times greater than the unemployment rate for the
general population.
(a) 2
(b)5
(c)H
(d) 23
The correct answer is 3 times higher. Score B C D (-) vs. A (+).

Error-Choice Item: Truth Indeterminable - Factual

In a recent comprehensive study of the prevalence of births to unmarried woemn,
it was reported that the rate among unmarried women who have mental retardation
is per 1,000 births.
(a) 11.7
(b) 26.3
(c) 42.2
(d)57.1
The rate for all women is 34.3 per 1,000. No data are available for woemn with mental
retardation. Score C D (-) vs. A B (+).

Error-Choice Item: Truth Indeterminable - Controversial

The frequency of psychoses among persons with epilepsy is than the
frequency of psychoses in the general population.
(a) considerably greater
(b) somewhat greater
(c) somewhat lesser
(d) considerably Lesser
According to experts, the average risk of psychoses for persons with epilepsy is
similar to that for the general population. Score A B (-) vs. C D (+).
 18 Antonak and Livneh

Table 2. (continued)

General Knowlege Item

The cytogenic shorthand 47 XY, 21+ represents the karotype for_
syndrome.
(a) Klinefelter
(b) Turner
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(c) Legg-Perthe
(d) Down
The correct answer is D.

CONCLUSION

As a result of the susceptibility of direct methods of attitude measurement

to the biasing influences of respondent sensitization, reactivity, and response
styles, indirect methods have gained considerable popularity in general attitude
research. Nevertheless, indirect methods have not been so readily embraced by
disability attitude researchers. The selection and use of indirect methods to
measure attitudes toward persons with disabilities should increase if research-
ers consider the sophistication and ingenuity of the methods discussed in this
article, such as the error-choice test method. The results of pioneering research
have shown that attitudes can be reliably measured by analyzing the biased
guessing of respondents to multiple-choice test items that do not provide the
right answer among the alternatives; that is, respondents select erroneous
alternatives to test items that are consistent with the direction of their attitude
toward the referent. The error-choice test method would seem to be particularly
useful as a supplement to the more traditional direct attitude instruments for the
investigation of questions concerning the formation, structure, and correlates
of attitudes among special service providers toward persons with disabilities
because of the high probability that direct measurement methods will yield
biased data.

REFERENCES

Abroms, K. I., & Kodera, T. L. (1979). Acceptance hierarchy of handicaps:

Validation of Kirk's statement "Special education often begins where
medicine stops." Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 15-20.
Altman,B.M. (1981). Studiesof attitudes toward the handicapped: The needfor
a new direction. Social Problems, 28,321-337.
 Methods to Measure A ttitudes 19

Altman,R.,&Lewis,T.J. (1990). Social judgments of integrated and segregated

students with mental retardation toward their same-age peers. Education
and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 107-112.
Anderson, R. J., & Antonak, R. F. (1992). The influence of attitudes and contact
on reactions to persons with physical and speech disabilities. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 34,240-247.
Antonak, R. F. (1994). Development and psychometric analysis of an indirect
measure of attitudes toward persons with mental retardation using the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

error-choice method. Mental Retardation, 32,347-355.

Antonak, R. F., Fiedler, C. R., & Mulick, J. A. (1989). Misconceptions
relating to mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 27, 91-97.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1988). The measurement of attitudes toward
people with disabilities: Methods, psychometrics, and scales. Springfield,
IL: Charles C.Thomas.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1991). Survey research on attitudes. In J. L. Matson
& J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (2nd ed.) (pp. 552-
568). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Antonak, R. F., & Livneh, H. (1995). Development, psychometric analysis, and
validation of an error-choice test to measure attitudes toward persons with
epilepsy. Rehabiliation Psychology, 40, 25-40.
Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied
Sociology, 9, 299-308.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology and Social
Research, 17, 265-271.
Buttery, T. J. (1978). Pre-service teachers' attitude regarding gifted children.
College Student Journal, 12,288-289.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Losch.M. E., &Kim, H. S. (1986). Electromyographic
activity over facial muscle regions can differentiate the valence and intensity
of affective reactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50,
260-268.
Campbell, D. T. (1950). The indirect assessment of social attitudes.
Psychological Bulletin, 47, 15-38.
Campbell, D. T., & Damarin, F. L. (1961). Measuring leadership attitudes
through an information test. Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 159-176.
Caruso, D. R., & Hodapp, R. M. (1988). Perceptions of mental retardation and
mental illness. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 93, 118-124.
Carver, C. S., Glass, D. C., & Katz, I. (1978). Favorable evaluations of Blacks
and the handicapped: Positive prejudice, unconscious denial, or social
desirability? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97-106.
Cialdini, R. B., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitude and attitude
change. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 357-404.
Cook, S. W., & Selltiz, C. (1964). A multiple-indicator approach to attitude
measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 62,36-55.
Couch, A., &Kenniston, K. (1960). Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response
set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
60.151-174.
 20 Antonak and Livneh

Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive. New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons.
Dawes, R. M., & Smith, T. L. (1985). Attitude and opinion measurement. In G.
Lindzey&E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol.1.
Theory and method (Irded.) (pp. 509-566). New York, NY: RandomHouse.
Edwards, A. L. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment
and research. New York, NY: Dryden Press.
Gargiulo, R. M., & Yonker, R. J. (1983). Assessing teachers' attitudes toward
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

the handicapped: A methodological investigation. Psychology in the

Schools, 20, 229-233.
Golin, A. K. (1970). Stimulus variables in the measurement of attitudes
toward disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 14, 20-26.
Gottlieb, J. (1975). Public, peer, and professional attitudes toward mentally
retarded persons. In M. J. Begab & S. A. Richardson (Eds.), The mentally
retarded in society: A social science perspective (pp. 99-125). Baltimore,
MD: University Park Press.
Gottlieb, J., Gorman, L., & Curci, R. (1984). Attitudes toward mentally
retarded children. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Attitude and attitude change in
special education: Theory and practice (pp. 143-156). Reston, VA:
Council for Exceptional Children.
Gough, H. G. (1960). Adjective Check List as a personality assessment
research scale. Psychological Reports, 6, 107-122.
Hammond, K. R. (1948). Measuring attitudes by error-choice: An indirect
method. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 43, 38-48.
Harasymiw, S. J., Home, M. D., & Lewis, S. C. (1976). A longitudinal study
of disability group acceptance. Rehabilitation Literature, 37, 98-102.
Holmes, D. A., & McWilliams, J. M. (1981). Employers attitudes toward
hiring epileptics. Journal of Rehabilitation, 20, 21.
Home, M. D. (1978). Cultural effect on attitudes toward labels. Psychological
Reports, 43, 1051-1058.
Home, M. D. (1980). How attitudes are measured: A review of investigations
of professional, peer, and parent attitudes toward the handicapped
(Report No. TM-78). Princeton, NJ: Clearinghouse on Tests, Measurement,
and Evaluation. (ERIC Document No. ED 198 154)
Home, M. D. (1985). Attitudes toward handicapped students: Professional,
peer and parent reactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jacobs, J. C. (1972). Teacher attitude toward gifted children. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 16, 23-26.
Janicki, M. P. (1970). Attitudes of health professionals toward twelve
disabilities. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 30, 77-78.
Jones, E.E.,&Sigall,H. (1971). The bogus pipeline technique: A new paradigm
for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 349-364.
Jones, R. L. (Ed.). (1984). Attitudes and attitude change in special education:
Theory and practice. Reston, VA. Council for Exceptional Children.
 Methods to Measure A ttitudes 21

Katz, I., Glass, D. C., Lucido, D. J., &Farber, J. (1977). Ambivalence, guilt, and
the denigration of a physically handicapped victim. Journal a/Personality
and Social Psychology, 45,419-429.
Katz, P. A., Katz, I., & Cohen, S. (1976). Whitechildren's attitudes toward Blacks
and the physically handicapped: A developmental study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 68, 20-24.
Kidder, L. H., & Campbell, D. T. (1970). The indirect testing of social
attitudes. In G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 333-385).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Chicago, IL: Rand-McNally.

Kleck, R., Ono, H., & Hastorf, A. H. (1966). The effects of physical deviance
upon face-to-face interaction. Human Relations, 19, 425-436.
Kubany, A. J. (1953). A validation study of the error-choice technique using
attitudes on National Health Insurance. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 13, 157-163.
Lemon, N. (1973). Attitudes and their measurement. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of
Psychology, No. 140.
Lindzey, G. (1959). On the classification of projective techniques.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 158-168.
Linkowski, D. C., Jaques, M. E., & Gaier, E. L. (1969). Reactions to
disabilities: A thematic analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 77, 201-
214.
Livneh, H. (1984). On the origins of negative attitudes toward people with
disabilities. InR. P. Marinelli& A. E. Dell Orto (Eds.), The psychological
and social impact of physical disability (2nd ed.) (pp. 167-184). New
York, NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Loevinger, J., Wessler, R., & Redmore, C. (1970). Measuringego development.
Vol. 1: Construction and use of a sentence completion test. San Francisco,
CA: Josey-Bass.
Losco, J., & Epstein, S. (1975). Humor preference as a subtle measure of attitudes
iowardihesameandiheoppositesex. Journal of Personality, 43,321-334.
MacMillan, D. L., & Morrison, G. M. (1984). Sociometric research in special
education. In R. L. Jones (Ed.), Attitude and attitude change in special
education: Theory and practice (pp. 70-92). Reston, VA: Council for
Exceptional Children.
Mallory, B. L., & Herrick, S. C. (1987). Investigating the impact of
communitization: Issues in research methodology. InR.F. Antonak&J. A.
Mulick (Eds.), Transitions in mental retardation: Vol. 3. The community
imperative revisited (pp. 43-71). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing
Corporation.
McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey & E.
Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 2. Special fields
and applications (3rd ed.) (pp. 233-346). New York, NY: Random House.
 22 Antonak and Livneh

Merkens, M. J., Perrin.E. C.,Perrin, J. M., &Gerrity,P. S. (1989). The awareness

of primary physicians of the psychosocial adjustment of children with
chronic illness. Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 10, 1-6.
Milgrain,S. ) Mann ) L. ) &Harter,S. (1965). The lost-letter technique of social
research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 437-438.
Mueller, D. J. (1970). Physiological techniques of attitude measurement. In
G. F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude measurement (pp. 534-552). Chicago, IL:
Rand-McNally.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Mueller,D. J. (1986). Measuring social attitudes: A handbookfor researchers

and practitioners. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A
review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 263-280.
Newcomb, T. M. (1946). The influence of attitude climate upon some
determinants of information. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology,
41, 291-302.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nded.). New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Orlansky, M. D. (1979). Active learning and student attitudes toward
exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 46, 49-52.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of
meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Oskamp, S. (1991). Attitudes and opinions (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Panda, K., & Bartel, N. (1972). Teacher perception of exceptional children.
The Journal of Special Education, 6, 261-266.
Parish, J. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1953). Measuring propaganda effects with
direct and indirect attitude tests. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 48, 3-9.
Peyton, S., Chaddick, J., & Gorsuch, R. (1980). Willingness to treat alcoholics:
A study of graduate social work students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
7,935-940.
Plummer, J. M. (1976). Projective techniques. InB. Bohon (Ed.), Handbook of
measurement and evaluation in rehabilitation (pp. 117-132). Baltimore,
MD: University Park Press.
Pushkin, I. (1967). A study of ethnic choice in the play of young children in
three London Districts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, London
University.
Quiglcy-Fernandez, B., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1978). The bogus pipeline as lie
detector: Two validity studies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 247-256.
Rabin, A. I. (Ed.). (1981). Assessment \vithprojective techniques. New York,
NY: Springer Publishing Company.
Rajecki, D. W. (\990).Attitudes(2nded.). Sunderland.MA: Sinauer.
Rankin, R. E.,& Campbell, D.T. (1955). Galvanic skin response to Negro and
white experimenters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51,30-
33.
 Methods to Measure Attitudes 23

Richardson, S. A..Goodman,N.,Hastorf, A., &Dornbusch,S. (1961). Cultural

uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociological
Review, 26,241-241.
Rorer, L. G. (1965). The great response style myth. Psychological Bulletin,
63, 129-156.
Sadlick, M., & Penta, F. B. (1975). Changing nurses' attitudes toward
quadriplegics through the use of television. Rehabilitation Literature,
36, 274-278.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Salend, S. J., & Giek, K. A. (1988). Independent living arrangements for

individuals with mental retardation. The landlord's perspective. Mental
Retardation, 26,89-92.
Samerotte, G. C., & Harris, M. B. (1976). Some factors influencing helping:
The effects of handicap, responsibility, and requesting help. Journal of
Social Psychology, 98, 39-45.
Scott, W. A. (1968). Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 11. Research methods
(2nd ed.) (pp. 204-273). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Shontz, F. C. (1971). Physical disability and personality. In W. S. Neff (Ed.),
Rehabilitation psychology (pp. 33-73). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Simmons, C.H.,&Zumph, C. (1983). The lost letter technique revisited. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 510-514.
Smith, G. H. (1947). Beliefs in statements labeled fact and rumor. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 80-90.
Stude, E. (1973). Evaluation of short-term training for rehabilitation
counselors: Effectiveness of an institute on epilepsy. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 16, 146-154.
Thorndike, R. M., Cunningham, G. K, Thorndike, R. L., & Hagen, E. P. (1991).
Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be measured. American Journal of
Sociology, 33,529-554.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Tringo, J. L. (1970). The hierarchy of preference toward disability groups.
Journal of Special Education, 4, 295-306.
VanderKolk, C. J. (1976a). Physiological and self-reported reactions to the
disabled and deviant. Rehabilitation Psychology, 23, 77-83.
VanderKolk, C. J. (1976b). Physiological measures as a means of assessing
reactions to the disabled. New Outlook for the Blind, 70, 101-103.
Walker, D.K. (1973). Socioemotional measuresfor preschool and Kindergarten
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Webb,E.J.,Campbell,D.T.,Schwartz,R.D.,&Sechrest,L. (1966). Unobtrusive
measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago, IL: Rand-
McNally.
 24 Antonak and Livneh

Welch, W. W., & Walberg, H. J. (1970). Pretest and sensitization effects on

curriculum evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 7,605-
614.
Weschler, I. R. (1950a). A follow-up study on the measurement of attitudes
toward labor and management by means of the error-choice method.
Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 63-69.
Weschler, I. R. (1950b). An investigation of attitudes toward labor and
management by means of the error-choice method. Journal of Social
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Psychology, 32, 51-62.

Offprints. Requests for offprints should be sent to Richard F. Antonak, Office of the
Dean, College of Education, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte,
NC 28223.

Submitted: April 1993

Revised: August 1993
Revised: November 1993
Accepted: November 1993

View publication stats