4.4 Article

Implicit associations related to physical disability among nursing students

期刊

DISABILITY AND HEALTH JOURNAL
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2021.101150

关键词

Disability; Nursing; Implicit associations

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that most nursing students tend to mentally associate able-bodied status with positive descriptors more quickly than disability-related stimuli. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between automatic processing, disability-related attitudes, and how this relationship informs clinician behavior.
Background: Negative beliefs about disability are associated with poorer outcomes for individuals with disabilities; understanding disability-related attitudes is critical for clinical care. Recently, interest in attitudes toward people with disabilities has increased; however, most studies focus on explicit attitudes. In contrast, the Disability Attitude Implicit Association Test (DA-IAT) is designed to evaluate respondents' underlying automatic preferences regarding physical ability. Objective: The aim of this pilot study was to expand the literature on health professionals' implicit disability attitudes by analyzing the DA-IAT in a sample of nursing students. Methods: A cross-sectional design was utilized with a sample of nursing students (n = 95; 88.7% female). Respondents completed the DA-IAT online before responding to some basic demographic questions. Results: Participants associated able-bodied status with positive descriptors more quickly than disability related stimuli. Conclusions: Most participants in this sample of nursing students (87%) mentally associated able-bodiedness with desirable traits in a more efficient manner than disability. Future research should focus on developing models to better understand the relationship between automatic processing, disability-related attitudes, and how this relationship informs clinician behavior. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据