How university students view disabled people: The role of wheelchairs, canes, and unspecified mobility aids.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Mobility aids are important to disabled people as a functional tool that can enhance their participation in leisure activities and work; however, mobility aids may also have implications for how disabled people are viewed by others. Using theories from social psychology, this study aimed to understand how mobility aids contribute to the perception of mobility aid users. RESEARCH METHOD: A total of 259 participants without disabilities, who were primarily young, Caucasian, female-identifying university students, completed the questionnaires. The primary questionnaires of interest included the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons with Disabilities and the Stereotype Content Model. Every participant completed three conditions of the questionnaires to examine their attitudes and stereotypes associated with three mobility aid conditions: a wheelchair, a cane, and a control condition without a specified mobility aid. RESULTS: Affective attitudes toward the unspecified mobility aid condition and the manual wheelchair condition were more negative than the cane condition. Perceived warmth was higher for the manual wheelchair condition compared to the unspecified mobility aid condition and perceived competence was higher for the cane and manual wheelchair conditions compared to the unspecified mobility aid condition. CONCLUSION: This study explored how young women without disabilities, and potentially nondisabled people more generally, may hold a range of attitudes and stereotypes about the use of mobility aids by disabled people. These findings have implications for the design of effective attitudinal change programs and for rehabilitation professionals who work with individuals as they adopt mobility aids following the onset of disability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".