Cerebral Palsy

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]
On: 04 October 2014, At: 15:26

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20
The attitudes and friendship intentions

of children in United Kingdom
mainstream schools towards peers with
physical or intellectual disabilities
a b
Glynis Laws & Elaine Kelly
a
University of Oxford , UK
b
Southern Health Board , Cork, Ireland
Published online: 21 Aug 2006.
To cite this article: Glynis Laws & Elaine Kelly (2005) The attitudes and friendship intentions
of children in United Kingdom mainstream schools towards peers with physical or intellectual
disabilities, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 52:2, 79-99, DOI:
10.1080/10349120500086298
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10349120500086298
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [University of Stellenbosch] at 15:26 04 October 2014
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
Vol. 52, No. 2, June 2005, pp. 79–99
The Attitudes and Friendship

Intentions of Children in United
Kingdom Mainstream Schools towards
Peers with Physical or Intellectual
Disabilities
Glynis Laws*a and Elaine Kellyb
aUniversity of Oxford, UK; bSouthern Health Board, Cork, Ireland
GlynisLaws
20Taylor
52
Department
00000June
& Francis
Internationalof
2005
Experimental
Group
10.1080/10349120500086298
CIJD108612.sgm
1034-912X
Original
2005 and
Article
Francis
(print)/1465-346X
Journal
Ltd Ltd PsychologyUniversity
of Disability, Development andofEducation
(online) OxfordSouth Parks RoadOxfordOX1 3DUUKglynis.laws@psy.ox.ac.uk
This study investigated typically developing children’s attitudes to physical and intellectual disabil-
ities using the Peer Attitudes Toward the Handicapped Scale (PATHS). Participants were 202 chil-
dren aged from 9 to 12 years in mainstream classes in the UK. The effect of knowledge about
disabilities on attitudes was investigated by controlling whether children received a description of
either a child with cerebral palsy or a child with Down syndrome before or after completing the
PATHS. Children’s friendship intentions towards the described child were also elicited. More
positive attitudes toward intellectual disabilities were expressed by children provided with informa-
tion about Down syndrome. More negative attitudes toward physical disability were expressed by
children provided with information about cerebral palsy. This pattern was mostly attributable to
the responses of girls who appeared to be more sensitive to the provision of information. Only chil-
dren’s attitudes to physical disability predicted friendship intentions.
Keywords: Attitudes; Friendship intentions; Intellectual disabilities; Peer Attitudes;

Physical disabilities
Introduction
Children with physical or intellectual disabilities are now often educated in main-
stream schools. Successful integration of such children into the regular classroom
depends on peer acceptance and on children with disabilities experiencing positive
interactions with classmates (e.g., Lewis, 1995). Poor peer relationships are likely to
*Corresponding author. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South

Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3DU, UK. Email: glynis.laws@psy.ox.ac.uk
ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/05/020079–21

© 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/10349120500086298
80 G. Laws and E. Kelly
lead to behavioural and emotional problems (see Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hay,

Payne, & Chadwick, 2004), which will have a negative effect on educational
outcomes as well as children’s adjustment. Poor peer relationships are also predic-
tive of adult psychopathology (e.g., Rutter, 1989). Conversely, peer acceptance and
friendships may protect against the development of behaviour problems (Criss,
Pettit, Bates, Dodge, & Lapp, 2002). Understanding and fostering successful peer
relationships is critical to ensuring the successful inclusion of children with disabili-
ties in mainstream schools and for supporting children’s social and emotional
development.
Lewis (1995) has emphasised that typical children’s understanding of disability is
important for peer acceptance. Although contact in school can provide a starting
point for the development of positive attitudes towards disability, it is important to
learn what kind of attitudes children have before the introduction of children with
disabilities to the classroom and to understand how these could be affected by the
provision of information. This study approached these questions by describing
the attitudes to disability of children in classes with no disabled children, comparing
the responses of children who had and had not been supplied with information
about a hypothetical child with a disability, and investigating the relationships
between attitudes and children’s behavioural intentions; that is, how friendly they
thought they would be towards that child.
Children’s peer relationships have generally been investigated through sociometric
methods where each member of a class is asked to nominate the children they like
best and those they like least. A formula is then applied to calculate which children
are popular and which children could be described as rejected or neglected (e.g.,
Coie & Dodge, 1983; Parker & Asher, 1993). This method has been applied to
investigate the acceptance of children with a range of disabilities (e.g., Cook &
Semmel, 1999; Fortini, 1987; Fox, 1989; Frederickson & Furnham, 2001; Gertner,
Rice, & Hadley, 1994; Johnson, 1950; Laws, Taylor, Bennie, & Buckley, 1996;
Manetti, Schneider, & Siperstein, 2001; Most, Al-Yagon, Tur-Kaspa, & Margalit,
2000; Nabuzoka & Smith, 1993; Townsend, Wilton, & Vakilirad, 1993; Voeltz,
1980; Wiener, Harris, & Shirer, 1990; Yude, Goodman, & McConachie, 1998). For
example, Yude et al. (1998) investigated the popularity of 9–10 year olds with hemi-
plegia. Compared with their classmates, children with hemiplegia were more often
rejected and less popular. Although the effects of rejection or neglect by classmates
can be offset by close friendships, these children also reported fewer friends and
were more often victimised. Other studies have produced similar patterns of results
(see Weiner, 1987). However, not all sociometric research presents a negative
picture (e.g., Kistner & Gatlin, 1989; Laws et al., 1996; Perlmutter, Crocker,
Cordray, & Garstecki, 1983). For example, Laws et al. (1996) found that children
with Down syndrome in mainstream classes were no less popular on average than
their classmates. Typically developing children in these classes, rated by teachers as
having poor behaviour, received negative nominations from peers. Although teach-
ers rated the behaviour problems of the children with Down syndrome as more
severe than those of any typically developing child, this did not limit their
Children’s Attitudes to Disability 81
acceptance. However, despite “average” popularity ratings, few children with Down
syndrome were nominated as best friends or received invitations to other children’s
homes.
The attitudes that underlie popularity ratings and friendship decisions can be
understood within the framework provided by Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of
reasoned action. This theory and its successor, the theory of planned behaviour
(Ajzen, 1991), have provided a background to research in studies of attitudes to
disability (Fortini, 1987; Roberts & Lindsell, 1997; Roberts & Smith, 1999). The
model includes the term “reasoned” because it assumes that people go through a
conscious reasoning process to decide which of all possible behavioural alternatives
they will enact in a specific situation. According to the theory, children’s attitudes to
disability will depend on what children know and understand about disability, and
these attitudes, together with the subjective norm, that is their perception of parents’
and teachers’ expectations, will predict children’s behavioural intentions to interact
positively with peers with disabilities.
Roberts and Lindsell (1997) found support for the theory in a study of children’s
attitudes and behavioural intentions towards children with physical disabilities in
inclusive classes. As well as predicting behavioural intentions, children’s attitudes
were correlated with the attitudes of teachers, school principals and mothers (the
subjective norm), and the attitudes of these adults also predicted a small proportion
of the variance in children’s behavioural intentions. The theory of planned behav-
iour includes an additional component relating to perceived behavioural control;
that is, how easy or difficult the performance of a behaviour is thought to be.
According to the theory, perceived behavioural control as well as behavioural inten-
tion is important in determining whether an actual behaviour is carried out. Roberts
and Smith (1999) applied this model to a further study of children’s attitudes to
physical disability. The children were in classes that each included a child with cere-
bral palsy. As well as measuring attitudes, behavioural intentions and perceived
control, children’s actual interactions with classmates with disabilities were
observed. Perceived control predicted behavioural intentions, which in turn
predicted children’s actual interactions, although perceived control was not a direct
predictor of behaviour.
Roberts and Smith’s (1999) research was on attitudes towards physical disabili-
ties. It is not certain whether these results would generalise to situations where a
child had intellectual disabilities. Children’s understanding of disability appears to
be influenced by factors other than the prevalence of a disability within the popula-
tion (Diamond, 1996; Woodward, 1995). Disabilities associated with specialised
equipment, such as a wheelchair, may be easiest for young children to understand
and represent. Disabilities that are less obvious may be more difficult to understand.
For example, Woodward (1995) demonstrated that young children appeared to be
unaware of the characteristics of Down syndrome whereas they could readily recog-
nise physical disability. It is important to know whether differences in children’s
capacity to understand different types of disabilities have an impact on their atti-
tudes and behaviour in the classroom and the playground.
Outline of the Study

This study examined children’s attitudes to disability using the Peer Attitudes
Towards the Handicapped Scale (PATHS) (Bagley & Green, 1981) and investigated
whether attitudes predicted intentions to be friendly towards hypothetical children
with disabilities. There is some advantage in studying children’s attitudes to disabil-
ity in a situation that does not involve a particular child. Sociometric analysis is
based on samples where a specific child is an integral part of the study group. The
results obtained are necessarily influenced by the characteristics of that specific child
as well as the general attitudes toward disability that children bring to the classroom.
By studying general attitudes to disability, independent of those towards specific
children, the characteristics and behaviour of a particular child with disabilities,
whether positive or negative, do not influence results.

Following Roberts and Smith (1999), children were also provided with a
description and photograph of a child with a disability and completed a Behav-
ioural Intention Scale (BIS) (Roberts & Lindsell, 1997), which asked how friendly
they thought they would be towards that child. By controlling whether children
received the photograph and description before or after completing the PATHS
questionnaire, the effect of the knowledge provided on the attitudes expressed was
assessed. Of course, unlike Roberts and Smith’s study, children’s actual behaviours
could not be observed. Roberts and Smith focused on classes that included a child
with cerebral palsy, and participants completed only the PATHS items associated
with the physical disability subscale. The current study was extended to compare
attitudes to physical disability and to intellectual disability, and children completed
all PATHS items, including those for a third subscale measuring attitudes to
behaviour difficulties. Since behaviour difficulties sometimes occur in association
with other disabilities, including this subscale allowed us to separate children’s
attitudes to poor behaviour from attitudes to other characteristics of atypical
children.
Many studies show differences between boys’ and girls’ attitudes to disability
(Furnham & Gibbs, 1984; Gash & Coffee, 1995; Royal & Roberts, 1987; Sandberg
1982; Weisel & Florian, 1990). For example, Gash and Coffee (1995) found that
young girls were more likely to identify, form friendships and be more socially
concerned about children with disabilities. To take potential differences into
account, the gender of participants was included as a factor in all analyses. The
PATHS questionnaire was originally developed for a US population by Bagley and
Green (1981), and Clunies-Ross and Thomas (1986) established reliability for an
Australian population. A further aim of the research was to determine the reliability
of the PATHS questionnaire with a UK population.
In summary, the study addressed the following questions:
(a) Is the PATHS a reliable measure of the attitudes of children in UK mainstream
schools?
(b) Do UK children show a similar pattern of responses to US and Australian
children?
Following earlier research, we hypothesise that children will show more negative
attitudes to behaviour difficulties than to physical or intellectual disabilities. In rela-
tion to this hypothesis, the following questions were also asked in this study:
(c) Does the provision of information about specific disabilities influence attitudes
to physical or intellectual disabilities? According to the theory already outlined,
knowledge should have an effect on attitudes but it does not predict whether
this would be a positive or a negative effect.
(d) Are there differences between the attitudes or friendship intentions of boys and
girls? Some past research leads us to hypothesise that girls will express more
positive attitudes to disability and declare more positive friendship intentions.
(e) Do children’s attitudes to disability predict their friendship intentions towards
hypothetical children with disabilities? According to the theory of reasoned

action, and to the results of previous research, we would expect to find a rela-
tionship between these measures.
Method
Participants
Children from four middle schools in a suburban area in the southeast of England
took part in the study. Two classes for children from Years 5 to 7 were recruited
from each school, making eight classes in total. Headteachers confirmed that there
were no children with disabilities in these classes. The class rolls totalled 234 but 32
children were absent from school on one or both days of the study. Complete data
for analysis was collected from 202 pupils (105 boys and 97 girls), aged from 9 to 12
years (mean [M] = 10.81, standard deviation [SD] = 0.87).
Measures
Peer Attitudes Towards the Handicapped Scale (Bagley & Green, 1981). The PATHS
scale consists of 30 statements each describing a behaviour common in school-aged
children with disabilities. Each statement is associated with one of three subscales:
physical disability (12 items), learning disability (10 items), or behavioural difficulty
(8 items). The first of these describes problems that might be associated with condi-
tions such as blindness, deafness or cerebral palsy. The learning disability category is
based on the US meaning of this term and addresses specific educational difficulties
in areas such as reading and mathematics. Thus the category is different to the Brit-
ish meaning of the term, which would generally be used to refer to people with low
intelligence. However, the items associated with this subscale could as readily be
applied to children with more general intellectual disabilities such as those with
Down syndrome. Since intellectual disability is an internationally recognised term,
we shall use this term throughout this report when referring to this subscale. The
behavioural difficulty subscale includes items that describe serious emotional and
psychological difficulties, including aggressive behaviour. Examples of the items
associated with each subscale are: (a) physical disability—Julie has only one arm
because of a serious auto accident. She is working below other students and has
difficulty writing and completing classroom assignments; (b) intellectual disability—
Maria learns very slowly and needs to have instructions repeated several times. Even
then she may not be able to do the work; and (c) behavioural difficulty—Peter does
not do what his teacher wants, which generally results in Peter being sent from the
room. He always argues with his teacher, causing the class to become very upset.
Children are asked to choose where they think that the child with the behaviour
described should work. Five alternatives are provided: (1) work with me in my
group, (2) work in another group (with someone else), (3) work in no group (with
no other students), (4) work outside of the class (in another class or room), or (5)
stay at home (and not come to school). Responses score from 1 to 5 points, with a
score of five representing the most positive attitude.

Bagley and Green (1981) reported an internal consistency coefficient of 0.89
(split-half reliability) and a test–retest coefficient of 0.75 for the total attitude score,
based on research with US children. Reliabilities for the three subscales were in the
same range. Scale scores were relatively independent of the demographic factors of
school grade, age, gender and school type.
Behavioural Intention Scale (BIS). This measure was used by Roberts and Lindsell
(1997) and was based on the friendship domain of Selman’s Assessment of Interper-
sonal Conceptions (Selman, 1980). The questionnaire presents 10 situations describ-
ing increasingly intimate aspects of childhood friendship behaviour, ranging from “I
would probably go up and say hello” to “I would share a secret with”. In response to
each statement, children were asked to select one of four responses; no, probably no,
probably yes, or yes. Responses scored from 1 to 4 points, where a score of four
represented a more positive intention.
The questionnaire was used to establish how friendly a child thought he/she would
be towards a hypothetical child with either a physical or intellectual disability. First,
the child was shown a photograph of a boy or a girl with cerebral palsy or with Down
syndrome (boys were shown a boy; girls were shown a girl). Each photograph was
accompanied by a brief written description of the child in the photograph (see
Appendix). Descriptions mentioned some general problems that would be typical of
the condition, but also included something positive about the specific child. Imme-
diately after showing the photograph and description, the BIS was administered.
Procedure
None of the headteachers thought it necessary to write to parents before the study.
Two visits were made by the second author to each school with an interval of one
week between visits. In two schools, children were shown photographs and descrip-
tions of a child with cerebral palsy. In the other two schools, the children were
shown photographs and descriptions of a child with Down syndrome. In order to
investigate whether having some knowledge of a disability influences children’s atti-

tudes, presentation of the PATHS was counterbalanced with presentation of the
vignettes and the BIS. Thus, for each “disability group”, children in one school
received the PATHS on the first visit followed by the vignettes and the BIS the
following week. Children in the other school completed the tasks in the opposite
order.
Clunies-Ross and Thomas (1986) found that young children were more likely to
understand and respond to all the questions in the PATHS when researchers read
the questions aloud to the class than when children were left to read and respond to
the questions by themselves. Accordingly, this procedure was followed here. Chil-
dren were informed that the questionnaire was not a test and that there were no right
or wrong answers. After giving instructions, each statement was read aloud by the
researcher and children were given time to record their answers on the sheet
provided. They were asked to give their own opinion about the statements, and not
to consult with classmates before writing their answers.
Before completing the BIS, children were given the photograph and description of
the boy or girl with a disability. The children were given a short time to inspect
these, and then the descriptions were read aloud to the class by the researcher. Chil-
dren were then asked to respond to the 10 BIS statements as honestly as possible,
and were reminded that it was not a test and that there were no right or wrong
answers. The researcher read each statement aloud, allowing time for responses to
be recorded after each one. After completing both questionnaires, children were
asked to record whether they knew anyone with a physical or intellectual disability.
Results
Reliability of the PATHS Scores
Calculations of Cronbach’s alpha showed adequate internal consistency for each of
the PATHS subscales: physical disability, α = 0.85; intellectual disability, α = 0.87;
behavioural difficulty, α = 0.82; total scale, α = 0.93. Item scores for each subscale
and the total scale were summed to produce raw scale scores. Direct comparison of
subscale raw scores was not possible as each is composed of a different number of
items. Scores were converted to percentiles and normal curve equivalents (NCEs)
following the table provided in the PATHS manual (Bagley & Green, 1981). Percen-
tiles and NCEs are based on the scores of a normative sample of 756 nine-year-old to
16-year-old US children. NCE scores are normally distributed with a mean of 50
and a standard deviation of 21.06. NCE scores are used in the following analyses.
Comparison of Attitudes to Behavioural Difficulty, Physical Disability and Intellectual

Disability
The means and standard deviations for each scale are presented in Table 1. For the
total scale and the physical disability subscale, distributions were closely comparable
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of raw scores and NCEs for PATHS subscales and total
scale (n = 202)
Raw score NCEs
Subscale M SD M SD
Behaviour difficulty 19.0 6.4 42.3 23.5

Intellectual disability 35.3 9.2 56.3 27.4
Physical disability 42.8 12.2 51.7 25.8
Total scale 97.1 18.8 51.7 21.8
with the normative sample. However, attitudes toward behaviour difficulties

appeared to be more negative than those of the normative sample, and attitudes
toward intellectual disability appeared to be somewhat more positive. One-way anal-
ysis of variance (ANOVA) of mean scores on the total scale showed that school
attended had no significant effect on attitudes [F(3,198) = 1.5, p > 0.05]. Attitudes
did not differ between children who did or did not know anyone with a physical or
intellectual disability [t(200) = −0.32, not significant (ns)], even if this person was a
friend or family member [t(200) = −0.16, ns]. There was no significant correlation
between scores and chronological age (CA) [r(202) = 0.06].
Bagley and Green (1981) classified the attitudes of respondents using the follow-
ing ranges: very positive (range 81–99), above average (65–80), average (36–64),
below average (20–35) or very negative (1–19). Table 2 presents the number of
participants in the current study falling into each of these categories for each
subscale.
Tables 1 and 2 illustrate a tendency for participants to have more negative atti-
tudes to behavioural difficulties than to other disabilities. This impression was inves-
tigated statistically in a mixed ANOVA with mean scores for the three subscales as
repeated measures. Gender was included in this analysis as a between-groups factor.
The analysis revealed a significant effect of disability type [F(1.516, 200) = 19.134,
p < 0.0001]. Post-hoc analysis using the Bonferroni test showed that scores on the
Table 2. Frequency of positive and negative responses to each PATHS subscale
Behaviour Intellectual Physical

difficulty disability disability
Number % Number % Number %
Very positive attitude 15 7.4 51 25.2 32 15.8

Above average attitude 22 10.9 25 12.4 32 15.8
Average attitude 74 36.6 75 37.1 85 42.1
Below average attitude 60 29.7 33 16.3 27 13.4
Very negative attitude 31 15.3 18 8.9 26 12.9
Figure 1. Distribution of scores for PATHS subscales for behaviour difficulty, intellectual
disability and physical disability for boys (n = 105) and girls (n = 97)
behavioural difficulty subscale were significantly lower than those on the other
subscales (p < 0.0001) for both comparisons, but that scores for the intellectual and
physical disability subscales did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). The between-
groups effect of gender was significant [F(1, 200) = 8.455, p < 0.01]. Overall, girls
expressed more positive attitudes than boys (see Figure 1).
There was also a significant interaction between disability type and gender [F(1,
Figure 1. Distribution of scores for PATHS subscales for behaviour difficulty, intellectual disability and physical disability for boys (n = 105) and girls (n = 97)
200) = 7.08, p < 0.01]. Independent group t-tests explained that whereas there was
no significant difference between boys’ and girls’ scores on the behavioural difficulty
subscale (boys, M = 40.7, SD = 17.7; girls, M = 43.9, SD = 28.5 [t(157.7) = −0.94,
p > 0.05]) or the intellectual disability subscale (boys, M = 53.4, SD = 29.0; girls, M
= 59.4, SD = 25.3 [t(200) = −1.57, p > 0.05]), boys expressed significantly more
negative attitudes than girls to physical disability (boys, M = 46.2, SD = 23.4; girls,
M = 57.6, SD = 27.0 [t(200) = −3.20, p < 0.01]).
The Effect of the Provision of Information on Attitudes to Physical and Intellectual

Disabilities
The principal question addressed by this study was whether the knowledge provided
by the photographs and descriptions of children with cerebral palsy or with Down
syndrome would have an effect on children’s attitudes. To assess this question,

further analysis was based on the scores obtained for the physical and intellectual
disabilities subscales only. A mixed ANOVA was calculated with PATHS physical
and intellectual disability subscales treated as within-subjects measures, and
between groups factors of disability type (whether the participant had seen a photo-
graph and description of a child with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome), order
(whether the PATHS was completed before or after seeing the descriptions) and
gender. The repeated measures factor was not significant [F(1, 194) = 2.205, p >
0.05]; there was no difference overall in the PATHS subscale scores for physical and
intellectual disabilities. Similarly, whether children received the photograph and
description of a child with cerebral palsy or Down syndrome had no significant over-
all effect on attitude scores [F(1, 194) = 1.146, p > 0.05]. There was no main effect
of order [F(1,194) = 0.148, p > 0.05]. The significant gender effect was confirmed
[F(1,194) = 12.061, p < 0.001]; overall, girls expressed more positive attitudes than
boys.
There were significant interactions. First, the repeated measure interacted with
disability type; that is, the description that participants had received [F(1,194) =
15.379, p < 0.0001]. Children who received the description of a child with Down
syndrome expressed more positive attitudes to intellectual disability than to physical
disability: intellectual disability subscale, M = 62.2, SD = 2.7; physical disability
subscale, M = 48.8, SD = 2.5. In contrast, children who received a description of a
child with cerebral palsy expressed more positive attitudes to physical disability than
to intellectual disability: intellectual disability subscale, M = 49.7, SD = 2.6; physi-
cal disability subscale, M = 55.7, SD = 2.4. Of course, only one-half of the children
in each disability group had seen the photographs and descriptions before complet-
ing the PATHS. Any difference in the attitudes of the two groups as a function of
the knowledge provided by the descriptions should be associated only with the
subgroup who saw the descriptions first. This hypothesis was confirmed by the
significant three-way interaction between the repeated-measures factor (the two
subscale scores), the type of disability children received information about and the
order in which children completed the procedures [F(1,194) = 7.519, p < 0.01].
This interaction was investigated further by examining the scores of children in each
disability group separately.
For children who received information about Down syndrome (see Figure 2a)
there was a significant within-subjects effect [F(1,97) = 12.76, p < 0.001], reflecting
the more positive scores on the intellectual disability subscale. There was no main
effect of order (F < 0.1), but there was a significant interaction between subscale
scores and order [F(1,97) = 13.34, p < 0.0001]. Participants who completed the
PATHS after the information about Down syndrome had been provided showed
more positive attitudes than those who completed the PATHS first (before, M =
53.6, SD = 4.0; after, M = 70.8, SD = 3.4). However, there was a difference in the
opposite direction for the attitudes expressed towards physical disabilities. More
negative attitudes were expressed after children had seen the description (before, M
= 55.1, SD = 3.8; after, M = 42.5, SD = 3.2).
Figure 2. Distribution of intellectual disability and physical disability subscale scores for children
provided with information about (a) Down syndrome (n = 99) and (b) cerebral palsy (n = 103)
For children who received information about cerebral palsy, the scores on the
Figure 2. Distribution of intellectual disability and physical disability subscale scores for children provided with information about (a) Down syndrome (n = 99) and (b) cerebral palsy (n = 103)
physical disability subscale are of most interest (see Figure 2b). Although these were
somewhat less positive for children who completed the scale after the provision of
information (before, M = 58.5, SD = 3.3; after, M = 52.9, SD = 3.5), there was little
difference for scores on the intellectual disability subscale in this group (before, M =
51.1, SD = 3.6; after, M = 48.3, SD = 3.7). However, the ANOVA showed that
there was no main effect of the within-subjects factor [F(1,101) = 3.26, p = 0.07],
and no interaction between this factor and the order in which children completed
the procedures (F < 0.1).
Differences between the Attitudes of Boys and Girls

Returning to the main analysis, there was a further three-way interaction between
the repeated-measures factor, the order in which children had completed the proce-
dures and gender [F(1,194) = 7.977, p < 0.01]. This appears to be because girls
were more influenced by the provision of information than boys (see Figure 3a and
b). This interaction was investigated further by separate ANOVAs for boys and girls.
For boys, although mean attitude scores to intellectual disability were more positive
than to physical disability [F(1,103) = 4.04, p < 0.05], there was no interaction with
order (F < 0.1), indicating that the provision of information did not influence boys’
scores. For girls, although there was no overall difference in mean attitude scores to
physical and intellectual disabilities (F < 0.1), there was a significant interaction
between subscale scores and the order in which girls had completed the PATHS
[F(1, 95) = 16.12, p < 0.0001]. Whereas more positive attitudes were expressed
towards intellectual disabilities by girls who had received information about Down
syndrome before completing the PATHS, more negative attitudes towards physical
disability were expressed by girls who had received information about cerebral palsy.
Figure 3. Distribution of PATHS intellectual disability and physical disability subscale scores for (a) boys (n = 105) and (b) girls (n = 97)
Children’s Behavioural Intentions

Table 3 presents the frequencies of positive and negative responses of children to the
questions asked in relation to the photograph and description of a child that they had
been shown.
Reliability analysis of the 10 friendship items produced Cronbach’s α = 0.86.
Items were summed to produce a scale with a maximum of 40 points (M = 30.2, SD
= 5.8, range = 10–40). Pearson’s product moment correlation showed there to be a
small but significant positive correlation between BIS scores and CA [r(202) = 0.16,
p < 0.05]. ANOVA was used to investigate whether BIS scores were affected by the
particular description children had received, the order in which they completed the
questionnaire procedures or gender, with CA treated as a co-variate. None of these
factors were statistically significant although the effect of gender approached signifi-
cance [F(1, 193) = 3.33, p = 0.07], with girls showing slightly more positive friend-
ship intentions than boys (girls, M = 31.2, SD = 5.1; boys, M = 29.3, SD = 6.3).
There were no significant interactions.
Figure 3. Distribution of PATHS intellectual disability and physical disability subscale scores for
(a) boys (n = 105) and (b) girls (n = 97)
Table 3. Number (%) of children replying “yes” or “probably yes” and “no” or “probably no” to
each of the friendship statements
Yes No
Statement Number % Number %
I would go up to him/her and say hello 186 92 16 8

I would sit beside him/her in class 166 82 36 18
I would play with him/her during break time 145 72 57 28
I would offer him/her some of my sweets 185 92 17 8)
I would choose him/her to be on my team during PE 156 77 47 23
I would work with him/her on a class project 149 74 53 26
I would invite him/her over to my house for tea 127 63 75 37

I would go to the cinema with him/her 124 61 78 39
I would go to his/her house to play 147 73 55 27
I would share a secret with him/her 133 66 69 34
Prediction of Children’s Behavioural Intentions

Total PATHS scores correlated significantly with children’s behavioural intentions
after adjusting for CA [r(199) = 0.35, p < 0.0001]. However, since we were inter-
ested in how information about specific disabilities might influence this relationship,
partial correlations, adjusting for age, were calculated between PATHS subscale
scores and BIS scores, treating each of the “disability groups” separately. For the
group who had received the description of a child with cerebral palsy, the PATHS
physical disability subscale was related to friendship intentions only when attitudes
had been measured after children had seen the descriptions [before, r(50) = 0.17, p
> 0.05; after, r(47) = 0.53, p < 0.0001]. For the group who had received the descrip-
tion of a child with Down syndrome, there were no significant correlations between
PATHS intellectual disability subscale scores and friendship intentions [before,
r(39) = 0.28, p > 0.05; after, r(54) = 0.009, p > 0.05].
To investigate what best predicted children’s friendship intentions, a stepwise
multiple regression was calculated with BIS scores as the dependent variable and the
three PATHS subscale scores, “disability group”, the order in which children had
completed the procedures and gender as independent variables. Only attitude to
physical disability was a significant predictor of children’s behavioural intentions [R
= 0.34, R2 = 0.12; F(1, 200) = 26.23, p < 0.0001].
Discussion
This study investigated mainstream children’s attitudes to disability and the effects
of providing information about a specific disability on the attitudes expressed. Atti-
tudes were assessed using the PATHS, a questionnaire that was originally designed
for use with US school children. Reliability and validity has also been assessed for
Australian school children (Clunies-Ross & Thomas, 1986) and has proved useful
for the evaluation of intervention programmes designed to change children’s atti-
tudes or to improve peer relationships (for example, Clunies-Ross & O’Meara,
1989). The present study has established its reliability in the context of mainstream
schools in the United Kingdom.
Children showed significantly more negative attitudes to the disruptive and
aggressive behaviours described by the PATHS’ behavioural disability subscale than
to physical or intellectual disabilities. This result is as expected from sociometric
studies that show the peer rejection of children with behaviour problems, and
conforms to the pattern of results reported by Clunies-Ross and Thomas (1986) for
Australian school children. Children in that study also conformed closely to Bagley
and Green’s (1981) US norms. In our study, attitudes to behaviour problems were
negative relative to the Bagley and Green norms as well as in relation to the chil-
dren’s attitudes to other disabilities (see Table 1). This is also apparent from Table
2, which shows that 45% of children had negative attitudes towards working with
children who were poorly behaved, compared with about 25% who were negative
about working with children with physical or intellectual disabilities.
Unlike earlier studies using the PATHS (Bagley & Green, 1981; Clunies-Ross &
Thomas, 1986; Roberts & Smith, 1999), there was a difference between boys’ and
girls’ responses. Although attitudes towards behavioural difficulties and intellectual
disabilities were similar, girls expressed more positive attitudes than boys to physical
disability. When these results were analysed in relation to whether participants had
received information about physical or intellectual disabilities, the picture was not
that simple. First, it did matter whether children were given information about a
child with cerebral palsy or with Down syndrome. Receiving information about a
child with Down syndrome led to significantly more positive attitudes about intellec-
tual disabilities, but receiving information about cerebral palsy led to more negative
attitudes towards physical disabilities. However, when the gender of participants was
taken into account, it was clear that this order effect was attributable to girls’ atti-
tudes. Although boys had more negative attitudes to physical disability than to intel-
lectual disability, these attitudes tended not to depend on whether or not they had
been given information. On the other hand, although girls had generally more posi-
tive attitudes, these were affected by the provision of information. Girls tended to
express more positive attitudes to intellectual disabilities if they had seen a descrip-
tion of a child with Down syndrome, but were more negative about physical disabil-
ities if they had seen a photograph and description of a child with cerebral palsy.
On the same occasion that children were shown the photograph and description of
a child with a disability, they were asked to complete the BIS to assess how friendly
they thought they would be to the child in the description if that child joined their
class. Children appeared to find some friendship behaviours more acceptable than
others. While most would be happy to say hello to the child with the disability or to
offer them a sweet, a substantial number did not want to engage in more meaningful
friendship behaviours such as inviting the child home to tea or to the cinema.
Furthermore, about one-quarter of the children stated that they would not want to
interact with the child at school in the classroom or in the playground. This seems
like a worrying statistic. However, there was no control condition to show the
proportion of children who would not want to interact with any unknown child,
whether or not they had disabilities. The converse of this result—that about three-
quarters of the children thought they would want to play with the child or sit beside
him/her in class—might well reflect the situation should any new child be introduced
to a class. Whether or not this is a satisfactory situation in this context depends on
whether children who expressed negative friendship intentions would be simply
indifferent to befriending the child with the disability or would engage in negative
behaviours such as teasing or bullying.
Roberts and Smith (1999) found that the attitudes recorded in response to the
PATHS physical disability subscale were predictive of children’s behavioural inten-
tions. In the present study, there was a significant correlation between total PATHS
scores and BIS scores, as predicted by the theory of reasoned action. However, rela-
tionships were less clear when these were investigated separately for physical and
intellectual disabilities, since these showed different patterns of results. There was a
significant relationship between attitudes to physical disability and behavioural
intentions, but only for children who completed the PATHS after being provided
with information about the child with cerebral palsy. This result has to be inter-
preted in the context of finding more negative attitudes toward physical disability in
this group. The provision of information about cerebral palsy and the opportunity to
think about friendship with such a child appeared to produce negative attitudes in
more children. Demonstrating more positive attitudes on the PATHS at the outset
was not associated with more positive friendship intentions for children who
completed the procedures in the opposite direction.
There was no statistically significant relationship between children’s intentions to
be friendly towards a child with Down syndrome and the attitudes expressed to
intellectual disabilities on the PATHS, regardless of the order in which children
completed the procedures. In the study group as a whole, only children’s attitudes to
physical disabilities were significant predictors of their friendship intentions towards
a hypothetical child with a disability. One possible reason for the lack of a relation-
ship between attitudes and behavioural intentions towards a child with intellectual
disabilities is the greater difficulty that children may have in understanding a disabil-
ity such as Down syndrome (see Woodward, 1995). This may make them more
uncertain about expressing friendship intentions. Another possibility is that the
behaviours described by items included in the PATHS intellectual disability
subscale focus on difficulties with school work. The majority (although not all) of
the BIS questions children’s intentions to be friendly towards a child outside the
classroom. Some children may find difficulties with classroom activities to be irrele-
vant to decisions about friendships outside the classroom, reducing any correlation
between the two measures.
Despite finding negative responses, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that
many of the children in the study did express positive attitudes and friendship inten-
tions. In these cases, there should be few concerns that a child with a disability
placed in the same class would encounter a negative reaction. However, the limited
statistical relationship between PATHS scores and BIS scores means that positive
attitudes and friendship intentions were not necessarily associated. A scatterplot of
the data for the “intellectual disability group” shows that only 37% of participants
could be categorised with positive attitudes to intellectual disability as well as declar-
ing highly positive friendship intentions (i.e., achieving a score of 30 or more on the
BIS, commensurate with a positive response to each item). Twelve per cent of chil-
dren were at the opposite extreme and had negative attitudes and friendship inten-
tions, and it is the behaviour of these children that one might be most concerned
about if a child with a disability was to join their class. However, a further 39% of
children, although categorised as having average to very positive attitude scores on
the PATHS, nevertheless expressed less than wholly positive friendship intentions. It
is arguable that requiring a score of 30 points as an indicator of positive friendship

intentions is setting the standard too high. However, if we consider the relationships
between PATHS attitudes and the two items on the BIS that may have most bearing
on how children behave in school—that is, whether they would work with the child
with a disability and whether they would play with him/her at break—then positive
attitudes are associated with negative friendship intentions in fewer cases; 11% and
18%, respectively. Understanding how the positive attitudes expressed by this group
of children can be turned toward the development of more positive friendship inten-
tions, and ultimately positive friendships, should be a concern.
For the “physical disability group” there was a clearer association between atti-
tudes and friendship intentions, with 52% of children providing positive responses to
both scales. Again, for a relatively small proportion (10%), negative attitudes were
associated with more negative friendship intentions, but there was also a sizeable
group (28%) expressing less than completely positive friendship intentions despite
being categorised with average to positive attitudes. If, as earlier, we consider only
children’s intentions to work in class or to play with a child with a physical disability
at break, then average to positive attitudes are paired with negative intentions for
21% and 17% of children, respectively. As already noted, in a situation where real
children with disabilities were to be introduced to the classroom, it would be impor-
tant to find ways to turn the positive attitudes expressed by these children towards
developing more positive friendship intentions.
The results of this study support previous research indicating that some children
have negative attitudes towards working or playing with a child with a disability. In
addition, the study has brought to light some potentially interesting differences
between the ways in which the provision of information about physical and intellec-
tual disability may influence the expressed attitudes of boys and girls. However,
before speculating about how these results might inform the process of introducing
children with disabilities to mainstream classes, further research would be neces-
sary—first to establish these as robust effects, and second to provide more qualitative
data to illuminate the reasons why some children feel the way they do.
The comparisons in this study were based on separate groups of children and it is
important to be clear that we are not talking about a change in attitudes being
brought about by the provision of information. Children receiving information

before and after completing the PATHS were in different schools so differences in
attitudes could be related to unmeasured factors associated with the schools, such as
staff attitudes. As well as knowledge, the theory of reasoned action states the impor-
tance of the subjective norm in determining attitudes. In this context, that would
include the attitudes of teachers as perceived by the children. However, since all the
classes in the study contained a mixture of girls and boys, it is not easy to account for
the gender differences in this way. The more negative attitudes towards physical
disability among the boys could be because many boys are interested in physical
activity and may see children with physical disabilities to offer limited potential in
this respect. Behavioural control, as a component of the theory of reasoned action,
could account for this finding in terms of boys perceiving friendship as more difficult
when a child occupies a wheelchair. This would certainly be the case if physical and
sporting action is seen by them as an important dimension of friendship.
The difference in the way that boys and girls appear to respond to the provision of
information and, in particular, the differential effect of information about physical
and intellectual disabilities on girls, is not easy to explain without recourse to further
research. A within-subjects design would provide the possibility of observing any
actual change in attitudes brought about by the provision of information. By provid-
ing photographs and information about both types of disability to participants, it
should also be possible to study the differential effect more carefully. To be in a posi-
tion to offer useful advice to teachers, future research should also focus on qualitative
methods to gain more understanding of the reasons for the negative attitudes and
friendship intentions expressed by some children, and of the reasons why some chil-
dren express positive attitudes but have no intention of making friends. For the time
being, we can say that there is wide variation in the attitudes of boys and of girls, and
that it might be a mistake to assume that providing prior information about a child
with disability will necessarily smooth his/her introduction to a mainstream class.
Acknowledgements
Data for this study were collected by the second author for a dissertation submitted
for the degree of M.Sc. Applied Psychology at the University of Surrey. The authors
would like to thank the pupils, teachers and headteachers of schools that took part,
parents who gave permission for the use of photographs of their children, and the
Down Syndrome Educational Trust in Portsmouth for supplying the photographs of
children with Down syndrome.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 179–211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bagley, M. T., & Green, J. F. (1981). Peer Attitudes Toward the Handicapped Scale (PATHS).
Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Clunies-Ross, G., & O’Meara, K. (1989). Changing attitudes of students towards peers with
disabilities. Australian Psychologist, 24, 273–284.
Clunies-Ross, G., & Thomas, M. (1986). Use of the Peer Attitude Toward the Handicapped Scale
in Australia: Grade differences in the scores of primary school students. Australia and New
Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 12, 257–263.
Coie, J. D., & Dodge, K. A. (1983). Continuities and changes in children’s social status: A five
year longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 29, 261–282.
Cook, B. G., & Semmel, M. I. (1999). Peer acceptance of included students with disability as a
function of severity of disability and classroom composition. Journal of Special Education, 33,
50–61.
Criss, M. M., Pettit, G. S., Bates, J. E., Dodge, K. A., & Lapp, A. L. (2002). Family adversity,
positive peer relationships, and children’s externalising behavior: A longitudinal perspective
on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, 1220–1237.

Deater-Deckard, K. (2001). Recent research examining the role of peer relationships in the devel-
opment of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 565–579.
Diamond, K. (1996). Preschool children’s conceptions of disabilities: The salience of disability in
children’s ideas about others. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 458–475.
Fortini, M. E. (1987). Attitudes and behavior toward students with handicaps by their non-handi-
capped peers. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 92, 78–84.
Fox, C. L. (1989). Peer acceptance of learning disabled children in the regular classroom. Excep-
tional Children, 56, 50–59.
Frederickson, N. L., & Furnham, A. F. (2001). The long term stability of sociometric status clas-
sification: A longitudinal study of included pupils who have moderate learning difficulties and
their mainstream peers. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 581–592.
Furnham, A., & Gibbs, M. (1984). School children’s attitudes towards the handicapped. Journal of
Adolescence, 7, 99–117.
Gash, H., & Coffee, D. (1995). Influence on attitudes towards children with mental handicap.
European Journal of Special Needs, 10, 1–16.
Gertner, B. L., Rice, M. L., & Hadley, O. A. (1994). Influence of communicative competence on
peer preferences in a preschool classroom. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,
37, 913–923.
Hay, D. F., Payne, A., & Chadwick, A. (2004). Peer relations in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 84–108.
Johnson, G. O. (1950). A study of the social position of mentally handicapped children in regular
grades. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 55, 60–89.
Kistner, J. A., & Gatlin, D. (1989). Correlates of peer rejection among children with learning
disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 133–140.
Laws, G., Taylor, M., Bennie, S., & Buckley, S. (1996). Classroom behaviour, language compe-
tence, and the acceptance of children with Down syndrome by their mainstream peers. Down
Syndrome: Research and Practice, 4, 100–109.
Lewis, A. (1995). Children’s understanding of disability. London: Routledge.
Manetti, M., Schneider, B. H., & Siperstein, G. (2001). Social acceptance of children with mental
retardation: Testing the contact hypothesis with an Italian sample. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 25, 279–286.
Most, T., Al-Yagon, M., Tur-Kaspa, H., & Margalit, M. (2000). Phonological awareness, peer
nominations, and social competence among pre-school children at risk for developing learning
disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 47, 89–105.
Nabuzoka, D., & Smith, P. K. (1993). Sociometric status and social behaviour of children with
and without learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 1435–1448.
Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1993). Friendship and friendship quality in middle childhood: Links
with peer group acceptance and feelings of loneliness and social dissatisfaction. Developmental
Psychology, 29, 611–621.
Perlmutter, B. F., Crocker, J., Cordray, D., & Garstecki, D. (1983). Sociometric status and related
personality characteristics of mainstreamed learning disabled adolescents. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 6, 20–30.
Roberts, C. M., & Lindsell, J. S. (1997). Children’s attitudes and behavioural intentions toward
peers with disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 44,
133–145.
Roberts, C. M., & Smith P. R. (1999). Attitudes and behaviour of children towards peers with
disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46, 35–50.
Royal, G. P., & Roberts, M. C. (1987). Students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward disabilities:
A comparison of twenty conditions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 16, 122–132.
Rutter, M. (1989). Pathways from childhood to adult life. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychia-
try, 30, 23–51.

Sandberg, L. D. (1982). Attitudes of non-handicapped elementary school students toward school-
aged trainable mentally retarded students. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 17,
30–34.
Selman, R. S. (1980). The growth of interpersonal understanding. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Townsend, M. A. R., Wilton, K. M., & Vakilirad, T. (1993). Children’s attitudes toward peers
with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37, 405–411.
Voeltz, L. M. (1980). Children’s attitudes toward handicapped peers. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 84, 455–464.
Weiner, J. (1987). Peer status of learning disabled children and adolescents: A review of the litera-
ture. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 62–79.
Weiner, J., Harris, P. J., & Shirer, C. (1990). Achievement and social–behavioral correlates of peer
status in learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 114–127.
Weisel, A., & Florian, V. (1990). Same and cross gender attitudes toward persons with disabilities.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 35, 229–238.
Woodward, R. (1995). The effects of gender and type of disability on the attitudes of children
toward their peers with physical disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29, 218–227.
Yude, C., Goodman, R., & McConachie, H. (1998). Peer problems of children with hemiplegia in
mainstream primary schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 533–541.
Appendix
Descriptions provided to accompany the photographs of the children with disabili-
ties. The children’s real names were not used.
1. This is Susan. Susan is 12 years old and has cerebral palsy. Susan uses a wheel-
chair to get around, especially when she goes to school. Susan loves music and
will sing almost every pop song in the charts. She also loves to go to dances and
is dressed up to go to one in this picture.
2. This is John. John is 11 years old and has cerebral palsy. John uses a wheelchair
to get around especially when he goes to school. John loves playing rough and
tumble with his friends. He has a great sense of humour and laughs a lot.
3. This is Kate. She is 11 years old and has Down syndrome. Kate takes longer to
learn new things in the classroom than many of her friends. It is sometimes diffi-
cult to understand her when Kate talks. Kate loves to chat to friends and sings
along to songs whilst playing the keyboard. She loves all types of music, espe-
cially pop songs.
4. This is Joe. He is 11 years old and has Down syndrome. Joe takes longer to learn
new things in the classroom than many of his friends. It is sometimes difficult to
understand Joe when he talks. Joe loves to chat with his friends. He phones his
friends a lot in the evening time when he has finished doing his homework.

Cerebral Palsy

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Cerebral Palsy

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]

On: 04 October 2014, At: 15:26

International Journal of Disability,

The attitudes and friendship intentions

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10349120500086298

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

The Attitudes and Friendship

Keywords: Attitudes; Friendship intentions; Intellectual disabilities; Peer Attitudes;

*Corresponding author. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South

ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/05/020079–21

lead to behavioural and emotional problems (see Deater-Deckard, 2001; Hay,

Outline of the Study

whether positive or negative, do not influence results.

hypothetical children with disabilities? According to the theory of reasoned

score of five representing the most positive attitude.

investigate whether having some knowledge of a disability influences children’s atti-

Comparison of Attitudes to Behavioural Difficulty, Physical Disability and Intellectual

Raw score NCEs

Behaviour difficulty 19.0 6.4 42.3 23.5

with the normative sample. However, attitudes toward behaviour difficulties

Table 2. Frequency of positive and negative responses to each PATHS subscale

Behaviour Intellectual Physical

Number % Number % Number %

Very positive attitude 15 7.4 51 25.2 32 15.8

The Effect of the Provision of Information on Attitudes to Physical and Intellectual

syndrome would have an effect on children’s attitudes. To assess this question,

Differences between the Attitudes of Boys and Girls

Children’s Behavioural Intentions

Statement Number % Number %

I would go up to him/her and say hello 186 92 16 8

I would invite him/her over to my house for tea 127 63 75 37

Prediction of Children’s Behavioural Intentions

is arguable that requiring a score of 30 points as an indicator of positive friendship

brought about by the provision of information. Children receiving information

on risk and resilience. Child Development, 73, 1220–1237.

try, 30, 23–51.

Potrebbero piacerti anche