Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:01:27.388Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing the Co-Worker Acceptance of Disabled Employees (CADE) Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2019

Jonathon S. Breen Open the ORCID record for Jonathon S. Breen [Opens in a new window]
Jonathon S. Breen*
Affiliation:
Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia
*
Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

There are a number of scales intended to measure workplace attitudes toward people with disabilities. However, there is limited demonstration of validity evidence, especially theoretical validity. This article reports on the development of the Co-Worker Acceptance of Disabled Employees (CADE) Scale, including an examination of theoretical and empirical validity evidences. Theoretical validity is supported by screening each scale item through the difference model of disability. Empirical validity evidence is generated through a content validity study and an initial validity study. Exploratory factor analysis reveals that workplace attitudes toward employees with disabilities are based on perceived differences between those with disabilities and others. The CADE Scale will support workplace training and provide evidence of attitude change subsequent to workplace disability-related interventions.

Keywords

Disabilityemploymentcontent validityattitudeinitial validation study
Type
Articles
Information
The Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing [AERA]. (U.S.) (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Antonak, R. (1982). Development and psychometric analysis of the scale of attitudes toward disabled persons. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 13(2), 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antonak, R. (1988). Methods to measure attitudes toward people who are disabled. In Yuker, H. (Ed.), Attitudes toward persons with disabilities (pp. 109–126). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Barnes, C. & Mercer, G. (2003). Disability. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Beck, C. & Gable, R. (2001). Ensuring content validity: An illustration of the process. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 9(2), 201–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bickenbach, J., Jerome, E., Chatterji, S., Badley, E., & Ustun, T. (1999). Models of disablement, universalism and the international classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. Social Science and Medicine, 48(9), 1173–1187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Breen, J. (2017). Disability as difference – A fictional representation. The Qualitative Report, 22(10), 2722–2741.Google Scholar
Breen, J. (2018a). Attitudes toward employees with disabilities: A systematic review of self-report measures. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling, 24(2), 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breen, J. (2018b). The co-worker acceptance of disabled employees (CADE) scale: a study to gather evidence of content validity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2429/67749.Google Scholar
Breen, J., Havaei, N., & Pitassi, C. (2018). Employer attitudes toward hiring persons with disabilities in Armenia. Disability and Rehabilitation. 1–8. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1459882.Google ScholarPubMed
Brennan, R. (2001). Some problems, pitfalls, and paradoxes in educational measurement. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 20(4), 6–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, J., Bezyak, J., Fraser, R., Pete, J., Ditchman, N., & Chan, F. (2013). Employers’ attitudes towards hiring and retaining people with disabilities: A review of the literature. Australian Journal of Rehabilitative Counseling, 19(1), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, F. (2005). Legislating disability. In Tremain, S. (Ed.), Foucault and the government of disability (pp. 108–130). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clayton, S., Barr, B., Nylen, L., Burström, B., Thielen, K., Diderichson, F., … Whitehead, M. (2011). Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled people: A systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the behaviour of employers. European Journal of Public Health, 22(3), 434–439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. (2010). Self comes to mind. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Darcy, S., Taylor, T., & Green, J. (2016). ‘But I can do the job’: Examining disability employment practice through human rights complaint cases. Disability and Society, 31(9), 1242–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from your panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, R. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
DeVellis, R. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Dhamoon, R. (2009). Identity/difference politics: How difference is produced and why it matters. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Domzal, C., Houtenville, A., & Sharma, R. (2008). Survey of employer perspectives on the employment of people with disabilities: Technical report. (Prepared under contract to the Office of Disability and Employment Policy, U.S. Department of Labor). McLean, VA: CESSI.Google Scholar
Dutta, A., Gervey, R., Chan, F., Chou, C., & Ditchman, F. (2012). Understanding employers hiring intentions in relation to qualified workers with disabilities: A United States study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18, 326–334. doi: 10.1007/s10926-008-9154-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. (2004). Seek out the magician: Contrarian tricks of mere simplicity make affect appear and disappear from social psychology. In Zajonc, R., (Ed.), The selected works of R.B. Zajonc (pp. 1–10). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Furr, R. & Bacharach, V. (2014). Psychometrics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Garland-Thomson, R. (2006). Integrating disability, transforming feminist theory. In Davis, L., (Ed.), The disability studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 257–272). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gawronski, B., & Baudenhausen, G. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grant, J. & Davis, L. (1997). Selection and use of content experts for instrument development. Research in Nursing & Health, 20(3), 269–274.3.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guidano, V. (1995). Constructivist psychotherapy: A theoretical framework. In Constructivism in psychotherapy. (no author, pp. 93–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, S., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hubley, A. & Palepu, A. (2007). Injection drug user quality of life scale (IDUQOL): Findings from a content validation survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, Article 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubley, A. & Zumbo, B. (2011). Validity and the consequences of test interpretation and use. Social Indicators Research, 103(2), 219–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, B. & Paterson, K. (1997). The social model of disability and the disappearing body: Towards a sociology of impairment. Disability & Society, 12(3), 325–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kane, M. (2016). Explicating validity. Assessments in Education: Principles, Policies and Practice, 23(2), 198–211.Google Scholar
Kidd, M., Sloane, P., & Ferko, I. (2000). Disability and the labour market: An analysis of British males. Journal of Health Economics, 19(6), 961–981.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Louvet, E. (2007). Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal qualities and competence. Rehabilitation Psychology, 52(3), 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynn, M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35(6), 382–386.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Messick, S. (1980). Test validity and the ethics of assessment. American Psychologist, 35(11), 1012–1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In Linn, R. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13–103). New York, NY: American Council on Education & Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1990). Validity of test interpretation and use. Research Rep. No. 90-11 Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L., McIntire, S., & Lovler, R. (2011). How do we develop a test? (Chap. 11, pp. 311–333). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (3rd ed.), Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
Nota, L., Santilli, S., Ginevra, , & Soresi, S. (2014). Employer attitudes towards the work inclusion of people with disability. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27(6), 511–520.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oliver, M. (1990). The politics of disablement. London: MacMillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, M. (2013). The social model of disability: Thirty years on. Disability and Society, 28(7), 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliver, M. & Barnes, C. (2012). The new politics of disablement. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palad, Y., Barquia, R., Domingo, H., Flores, C., Padilla, L., & Ramel, J. (2016). Scoping review of instruments measuring attitudes toward disability. Disability and Health Journal, 9(3), 354–374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Parsons, T. (1951). Illness and the role of the physician: A sociological perspective. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 21(3), 452–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penfield, R. (2013). Item analysis. In Geisinger, K., (Ed.) APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology: Vol. 1. Test theory and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 121–138). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Polit, D., Beck, C., & Owen, S. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30(6), 459–467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rioux, M. & Patton, L. (2014). Employment equity and disability: Moving forward to achieve employment integration and fulfil promises of inclusion and participation. In Agócs, C. (Ed.), Employment equity in Canada: The legacy of the Abella report (pp. 133–155). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schilling, L., Dixon, J., Knafl, K., Grey, M., Ives, B., & Lynn, M. (2007). Determining content validity of a self-report instrument for adolescents using a heterogeneous expert panel. Nursing Research, 56(5), 361–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shildrick, M. (2012). Dangerous discourses of disability, subjectivity and sexuality. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Stone, D. & Colella, A. (1996). A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 352–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turcotte, M. (2014). Persons with disabilities and employment. (Catalogue No. 75-006-X). Statistics Canada. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2014001/article/14115-eng.pdf.Google Scholar
Vehmas, S. & Watson, N. (2014). Moral wrongs, disadvantages, and disability: A critique of critical disability studies. Disability and Society, 29(4), 638–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vehmas, S. & Watson, N. (2016). Exploring normativity in disability studies. Disability and Society, 31(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vornholt, K., Uitdewilligen, S., & Nijhuis, J. (2013). Factors affecting the acceptance of people with disabilities at work: A literature review. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 23, 463–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waltz, C., Strickland, O., & Lenz, E. (2010). Measurement in nursing and health research (4th ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Watkins, M. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis (computer software). State College, PA: Ed & Psych Associates.Google Scholar
Warner, R. (2008). Applied statistics. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Yuker, H., Block, J., & Younng, J. (1970). Applied statistics. Albertson, NY: Insurance Company of North America.Google Scholar
Zajonc, R. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35(2), 151–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zajonc, R. (2000). Closing the debate over the independence of affect. In Forgas, J. (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition, (pp. 31–58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar