4.4 Review

Scoping review of instruments measuring attitudes toward disability

期刊

DISABILITY AND HEALTH JOURNAL
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 354-374

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2016.01.008

关键词

Communication disability; Intellectual disability; Mental illness; Persons with disability; Questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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. (C) 2016 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