Public attitudes towards intellectual disability: a multidimensional perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public attitudes towards persons with intellectual disabilities (IDs) have a significant effect on potential community integration. A better understanding of these can help target service provision and public awareness programmes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study is threefold: (1) describe public attitudes towards persons with ID along affective, cognitive and behavioural dimensions; (2) compare and contrast attitudes according to sex, age, education and income, as well as frequency and quality of contacts with persons with ID; and (3) ascertain whether the level of functioning has an effect on attitudes. METHODS: The Attitudes Toward Intellectual Disability Questionnaire (ATTID) was administered by phone to 1605 randomly selected adult men and women, stratified by region in the province of Québec, Canada. The ATTID uses a multidimensional perspective of attitudes that reflect affective, cognitive and behavioural dimensions. RESULTS: The results showed that public attitudes were generally positive regarding all three attitudinal dimensions. Public attitudes towards persons with ID are presented in terms of the five factors measured through the ATTID: (1) discomfort; (2) sensibility or tenderness; (3) knowledge of causes; (4) knowledge of capacity and rights; and (5) interaction. Attitude factor scores vary as a function of participant characteristics (sex, age, education and income) and the degree of knowledge about ID, the number of persons with ID known to the participants, as well as the frequency and quality of their contacts with these persons. Men had greater negative attitudes than women as regards the discomfort factor, while women had more negative attitudes regarding the knowledge of capacity and rights factor. More positive attitudes were revealed among younger and more educated participants. Attitudes were generally not associated with income. Public attitudes tended to be more negative towards people with lower functioning ID. CONCLUSION: These results yield useful information to target public awareness and education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".