|
...likely to be employed and that earnings were likely to be lower than earnings by individuals without disabilities. At that time, 23% of individuals with a work disability (as defined by the ADA) and 73% of individuals with a severe work disability were not in the labor force (U.S. Census Bureau, 1995). Although the ADA was enacted over fifteen years ago, the employment of individuals with disabilities has not increased in more recent years. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 74% of working age (16 to 76 years old) individuals with work disabilities (as defined by the ADA) were not in the labor force. Furthermore, for that same age range, 91% of individuals with a severe work disability were not in the labor force. For those with a work disability that were able to find gainful employment, evidence indicates that they may not have been treated equitably once in the workplace. For example, in 1999, the mean earnings of individuals with a work disability were only $19,745 compared to mean earnings of $32,000 for individuals without a work disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000a, 2000b).
As indicated by the above numbers, individuals with disabilities face at least two key obstacles in the workforce: (a) access to jobs and (b) treatment as a job incumbent. In reference to access to jobs, individuals with disabilities may have physical obstacles that prevent entry into the workforce (Feldman, 2004; Nietupski & Hamre-Nietupski, 2000). Additionally, recruitment practices and selection procedures may unfairly eliminate individuals with disabilities from jobs for which they are otherwise qualified (Drehmer & Bordieri, 1985; Hernandez, 2000; Satcher & Dooley-Dickey, 1992; Stone, Stone, & Dibpoye, 1992).
As job incumbents, individuals with disabilities may also be at a disadvantage when compared to individuals without disabilities. Various researchers have found that individuals with disabilities receive lower pay and benefits (U.S Census Bureau, 2000a), receive fewer opportunities for training (Reyna & Sims, 1995), and may receive biased performance appraisals (Colella, DeNisi, & Varma, 1997). Also, individuals with disabilities when compared to individuals without disabilities have lower promotion rates (Bordieri, Drehmer, & Taylor, 1997) and shorter job tenure (Colella, 1994). Socially, individuals with disabilities have been found to have fewer relevant role models (Jones, 1997), and may even be subject to out-group membership status (Jones). Furthermore, stigmatization associated with their disability may lead individuals with disabilities to feel self-conscious about how they are perceived and about their behaviors in social situations, which may in turn lead them to avoid the development of social relationships (Livneh, Lott, & Antonak, 2004; Stone et al., 1992). By isolating themselves in such a fashion, individuals with disabilities may experience depression and anxiety. Finally, individuals with disabilities may have higher rates of attrition in organizations than individuals with no disability (Lerner, Adler, Chang, Lapitski, Hood, Perissinotto, Reed, McLaughlin, Berndt, & Rogers, 2004). Taken together, these various difficulties create consequences for individuals with disabilities, for organizations, and for society at large.
Given the unique set of challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in the workplace, it is important to accurately measure and identify potentially biased attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. That is, one way to begin eradicating these obstacles is to focus on measuring the attitudes that interviewers, supervisors, co-workers and subordinates may have toward individuals with disabilities. Along those lines, several instruments using direct response techniques have been developed to specifically measure "explicit" attitudes toward individuals with disabilities. Some examples of direct paper-and-pencil measures are the Attitudes Towards Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP; Yuker, Block, & Campbell, 1960), the Disability Factor Scales (DFS; Siller, Ferguson, Vann, & Holland, 1967), the Scale of Attitudes Toward Disabled People (SADP; Antonak, 1982), and the Interaction with Disabled Persons Scale (IDP; Gething, 1994).
Although these direct response methods have been widely used, they are susceptible to numerous threats to validity (Antonak & Livneh, 2000). Cannon and Szuhay (1986) found that rehabilitation counseling students, when asked to fake the ATDP, had significantly higher scores than those asked to respond honestly. In addition, Yuker (1986) concluded that some people in certain conditions, such as when individuals have a motive to provide socially desirable answers, have done so on the ATDE It is important to note that these direct response limitations are not constrained to the most often used scale, the ATDP. Thomas (2001) and Gething (1994) have both found other commonly used scales, such as the IDP and the SADP, are likewise susceptible to these same validity issues.
Measuring attitudes through an indirect response method may provide a way to reduce and potentially eliminate these threats to validity found with direct response methods. Traditional examples of indirect response methods are projective techniques (e.g., Ford, Liske & Ort, 1962), disguised measures (e.g., Comer & Piliavin, 1975), behavioral observations (e.g., Cacciapaglia, Beauchamp, & Howells, 2004), physiological methods (e.g., Zych & Bolton, 1972), and the randomized response technique (e.g., Antonak & Livneh, 1995; Antonak & Livneh, 2000). While these indirect methods have been successful in reducing the impact of socially desirable responding and faking in the laboratory, many of these methods are impractical to apply to interviewers, supervisors, and coworkers in an organizational setting.
Another recently developed indirect method of measuring attitudes toward individuals with disabilities that seems feasible to conduct in the real world is the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT measures implicit attitudes of a rater. Implicit attitudes, as defined by Greenwald et al. (1998), are automatic evaluations activated without the individual's awareness. These automatic evaluations are evidenced in actions and judgments, but unlike direct measures of these attitudes, are thought to be outside of the person's conscious control. In short, the IAT attempts to assess the increased cognitive processing time that occurs when non-compatible target concepts and attributes are placed together (e.g., Cancer and Pleasant) versus when compatible target concepts and attributes are placed together (e.g., Cancer Free and Pleasant). It is thought by most researchers in the area of implicit attitudes (e.g., Greenwald et al., 1998; Jajodia & Earleywind, 2003; Teachman & Woody, 2003, etc.) that this increased cognitive processing time may be due to the underlying bias the individual has toward the target group (individuals with Cancer in this particular case). This mean difference in response time between congruent and incongruent categorizations, measured in milliseconds, is technically referred to as the IAT effect (Greenwald et al., 1998). The larger the IAT effect, the more potential the rater has to be biased against individuals with disabilities.
The Implicit Association Test Procedure
Stated more technically, the IAT administration consists of five major steps in which participants are presented with either the discrimination category of interest (e.g., for disability: Cancer and Cancer Free; for gender: female and male, etc.), the evaluative attribute dimension (e.g., Pleasant and Unpleasant), or a combination of both a discrimination category and an attribute dimension (for example, using hypothesized incongruent pairings: Cancer--Pleasant and Cancer Free--Unpleasant). The participant is then instructed to use a computer keyboard to designate the stimulus items into one of the categories or dimensions by pressing appropriate keys with his/her left or right forefinger as quickly as possible. Each side of the discrimination category (e.g., Cancer and Cancer Free) or attribute dimension (e.g., Pleasant and Unpleasant) is shown on opposite sides of the screen. The stimulus item that needs to be categorized is presented in the middle of the screen. The participants then press the appropriate key to either assign the neutral stimulus item to the discrimination category (or attribute dimension) on the right-hand side of the screen using the right forefinger or the discrimination category (or attribute dimension) on the left-hand side of the screen using the left forefinger (Greenwald et al., 1998).
The first of the five major steps in the IAT administration introduces the discrimination category (e.g., Cancer and Cancer Free) to the participant. At first, a screen appears with the word Cancer on the top left-hand side of the screen and the words Cancer Free on the top right-hand side of the screen. One at a time a stimulus word such as weak or sick appears in the center of the screen and the participant assigns the word to either the Cancer category by pressing the key assigned to the left-hand side of the screen or assigns it to the Cancer Free category by pressing the key assigned to the right-hand side of the screen.
The second step is the introduction of the attribute dimension (e.g., Pleasant and Unpleasant). At first, a screen appears with the word Unpleasant on the top left-hand side of the screen and the word Pleasant on the top right-hand side of the screen. One at a time a stimulus word such as flower or thorn appears in the center of the screen and the participant assigns the stimulus word to either the Unpleasant category by pressing the key assigned to the left-hand side of the screen or assigns the word to the Pleasant category by pressing the key assigned to the right-hand side of the screen. Thus, the only real difference between steps 1 and 2 is that step 1 involves assigning neutral words to the discrimination category of interest while step 2...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from The Journal of Rehabilitation
Assessment of memory in rehabilitation counseling.(Clinical report), April 01, 2007
RSA services and employment outcome in consumers with traumatic brain ..., April 01, 2007
The relationship of type of disability and employment status in the Un..., April 01, 2007
A test of the theory of informed consumer choice in vocational rehabil..., April 01, 2007
Increasing Quality of Life and Awareness of deficits in persons with t..., April 01, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
