The Cross Validation of the Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS

Abstract

The eighteen-statement Attitudes Toward Mainstreaming Scale (ATMS) was cross validated through a principal axis factor analysis procedure. The 159 subjects comprising the original sample and the 164 subjects comprising the cross-validation sample included both preservice students and inservice teachers representing seventeen teaching fields. The same three factors, named Learning Capability, General Mainstreaming, and Traditional Limiting Disabilities, emerged from the analysis of each sample. Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for the total scale were .89 and .88 for the two samples ; those for the factors ranged from .76 to .84. Pearson correlations between individual factors and total scale scores ranged from .81 to .86 with factor intercorrelations ranging from .42 to .55. These results seem to indicate that enough evidence exists concerning the reliability and factorial validity of this scale to justify the use of the ATMS in further studies of attitudes toward mainstreaming. EDUCATIONAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT 1980,40 THE practice of &dquo;mainstreaming,&dquo; integrating disabled students into the regular classroom, is an important aspect of the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. As the actual use of mainstreaming becomes more prevalent, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate the attitudes of those individuals intimately concerned with the process (Moore and Fine, 1978).The literature, including compilations of measurement reviews, offers no evidence that a viable scale of attitudes toward mainstreaming currently exists. In most instances, instruments used to measure atti-1 Appreciation is expressed to Alice E. Klein, who provided both general advising and editing and specific assistance with statistical procedures, and to Robert A. Hawley, who assisted with data processing.

Occupational Therapy Faculty Attitudes toward the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Their Educational Programs

“…It is noteworthy that respondents were less favorable toward including students with behavioral disabilities in their educational programs than including any other group. This finding is consistent with the literature that states faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities are hierarchical and vary from disability to disability (Berryman & Neal, 1980;Chubon, 1989;Wilczenski, 1992). Faculty may fear students with behavioral disabilities (Brinkerhoff, Shaw, & McGuire, 1993) or may perceive that they do not know how to handle these students in a classroom situation (Fichten, Amsel, Bourdon, & Creti, 1988;Wilzcenski, 1992).…”

“…From the findings of this study, it seems feasible that OT faculty may hold stereotypes of students, particularly those with behavioral disabilities. Considering the more negative attitudes toward inclusion overall held by associate degree program faculty, it is also possible that once these students are admitted, low expectations of their performance may occur, further promoting poor student performance because of faculty resistance to extensive accommodations or faculty fear of classroom disruption, as suggested in the literature (Berryman and Neal, 1980;Brinkerhoff, et al, 1993;Westbrook & Adamson, 1989;Wilzcenski, 1992Wilzcenski, , 1995. The accuracy of these speculations needs investigation.…”

A question of attitudes: integrating children with disabilities into regular classrooms?

“…Many researchers into attitudes have used Likert-type inventories in attempting to ascertain the extent to which respondents agree or disagree with the general concept of integration as related to a range of disabling conditions (Larivee and Cook. 1979;Berryman. Neal and Berryman, 1980).…”

The Sentiments, Attitudes, and Concerns about Inclusive Education Revised (SACIE-R) Scale for Measuring Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions about Inclusion

“…Similar to other scales such as the Attitude Toward Mainstreaming Scale (Berryman & Neal, 1980), which since its early development has continued to undergo re-evaluation of its factor structure and validity (Green & Harvey, 1983;Wilczenski, 1992), it is anticipated that the SACIE-R scale will similarly be exposed to further rigorous assessment to ensure it retains its currency and applicability across as broad a range of jurisdictions as possible. There are initial indications, however, of some limitations that should be investigated further by researchers using the instrument.…”