Yves Y Palad1, Rensyl B Barquia2, Harvey C Domingo2, Clinton K Flores2, Levin I Padilla2, Jonas Mikko D Ramel2. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Allied Medical Professions, University of the Philippines Manila, UP-PGH Compound, Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila 1004, Philippines. Electronic address: yypalad@up.edu.ph. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, College of Allied Medical Professions, University of the Philippines Manila, UP-PGH Compound, Pedro Gil Street, Malate, Manila 1004, Philippines.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Negative attitudes toward disability cause difficulties in integrating persons with disabilities (PWDs) into society and limit their access to health care, education, employment, and leisure. Being aware of societal attitudes toward disability may help explain discrimination against PWDs and draw attention to the solutions needed to address these. Good measures of attitudes are vital for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to synthesize published information, including evidences on psychometric properties and overall utility on instruments that measure attitudes toward disability. METHODS: A two-tiered search process was performed to identify instruments that measure attitudes toward disability and retrieve articles that describe their development and/or validation. The CanChild Outcome Measures Rating Form was utilized to determine the overall utility of the instruments. Results were synthesized using a self-constructed data extraction form. RESULTS: Thirty-one instruments were included in the study. Five measured attitudes toward communication disability, 7 toward intellectual disability, 4 toward mental illness, and 15 toward disability in general. Target respondents ranged from children to adults, and included respondents from different occupations and cultural backgrounds. Twenty-three were found to have adequate overall utility, while 8 have poor overall utility. CONCLUSION: Several instruments are available in literature and all may be used for their intended purposes as long as their limitations are considered. Many still require further validation to ascertain their validity and responsiveness to change.
BACKGROUND: Negative attitudes toward disability cause difficulties in integrating persons with disabilities (PWDs) into society and limit their access to health care, education, employment, and leisure. Being aware of societal attitudes toward disability may help explain discrimination against PWDs and draw attention to the solutions needed to address these. Good measures of attitudes are vital for this purpose. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to synthesize published information, including evidences on psychometric properties and overall utility on instruments that measure attitudes toward disability. METHODS: A two-tiered search process was performed to identify instruments that measure attitudes toward disability and retrieve articles that describe their development and/or validation. The CanChild Outcome Measures Rating Form was utilized to determine the overall utility of the instruments. Results were synthesized using a self-constructed data extraction form. RESULTS: Thirty-one instruments were included in the study. Five measured attitudes toward communication disability, 7 toward intellectual disability, 4 toward mental illness, and 15 toward disability in general. Target respondents ranged from children to adults, and included respondents from different occupations and cultural backgrounds. Twenty-three were found to have adequate overall utility, while 8 have poor overall utility. CONCLUSION: Several instruments are available in literature and all may be used for their intended purposes as long as their limitations are considered. Many still require further validation to ascertain their validity and responsiveness to change.
Authors: Alicja Grześkowiak; Urszula Załuska; Cyprian Kozyra; Dorota Kwiatkowska-Ciotucha Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Urszula Załuska; Alicja Grześkowiak; Cyprian Kozyra; Dorota Kwiatkowska-Ciotucha Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-25 Impact factor: 3.390