Inclusive education programs for students with identified
disabilities have become increasingly prevalent over the last several
years (Katsiyannis, Conderman, & Franks, 1995; Sawyer, McLaughlin,
& Winglee, 1994). This trend may be due in part to a general
perception created by the extant literature, and by exposure of the
subject in the mass media, that such programs are endorsed by most of
those concerned with the education of exceptional children. However,
concerns over the practical implications of a wide scale move toward
inclusive models of educational service delivery have resulted in much
divisiveness among parents and educators over the merits of some
inclusion ideals (Borthwick-Duffy, Palmer, & Lane, 1996; Fuchs &
Fuchs, 1994).
Support for more inclusive models of educational service delivery
has traditionally been associated with advocates of the Regular
Education Initiative (REI) who proposed merging the resources of general
and special education to better serve students whose needs were
primarily academic remediation. While REI proponents called for large
scale mainstreaming, there was never any formal intent to eliminate all
special programs. However, current and more fervent reform efforts
calling for inclusion of all special education students into the general
education classroom, and often for the elimination of separate special
education programs, is now led by organizations such as The Association
for Persons with Severe Disabilities (TASH) whose primary constituents
are students with significant cognitive disabilities (Fuchs & Fuchs,
1994).
These advocates have done much to expand educational opportunities
and extend the continuum of placement options for students with
significant cognitive disabilities, as witnessed by the trend toward an
increasing number of such students being served in general class
settings (Sawyer et al., 1994). Yet, while most educators appear to
agree with the worthy principles, ideals, and goals associated with the
inclusion position, many (i.e., Davis, 1989; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994;
Kaufman, 1989; Lieberman, 1985) have expressed concerns that the
movement appears to be led by a small number of disillusioned special
educators who may be ignoring input from many of those who are affected
by the implementation of such programs.
While there is increasing literature regarding the perceived
benefits of inclusive education (Brinker & Thorpe, 1984; Giangreco,
Dennis, Cloninger, Edelman, & Schattman, 1993; Sharpe, York, &
Knight, 1994; Staub & Hunt, 1993), it is also becoming clear that
the goal of providing services to exceptional children strictly within
general education classrooms is inconsistent with views expressed by
many within the special education community. Citing the need to preserve
the continuum of specialized programs and placement options which have
been hard won in previous years, many parent and advocacy groups,
primarily representing students with forms of disability that do not
include a significant delay in cognitive functioning, have come out
against the elimination of separate special education programs
(Borthwick-Duffy et al., 1996; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994).
This lack of unity in opinion regarding the efficacy of inclusive
practices may result from conflicting views regarding the primary
mission of the schools. While those advocating essentially for students
with significant cognitive disabilities appear most interested in
increased opportunities to develop social competence and friendships,
and in the concept of providing a "normalized" environment,
parents and advocates pledged to students with milder forms of
disability are principally interested in the school's ability to
provide specialized services designed to address academic goals (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 1994). The latter group believes that their goals can best
be met through the availability of specialized programs and services
that may be offered outside of the general education classroom, and are
therefore against the elimination of such programs in the name of
inclusive education.
However, curricular goals are only one component of a
student's educational experience, and all parents cannot be
expected to share a cohesive view of the function of the schools or of
the efficacy of inclusion simply because their children share a common
form of disability. As such, even parents of children with significant
cognitive disabilities cannot be expected to hold similar views of
inclusive practices simply on the basis of this shared interest.
Research has, in fact, indicated that this group of parents holds widely
divergent views regarding the efficacy of inclusive practices for their
own children (Palmer, Borthwick-Duffy, Widaman, & Best, 1997). This
finding indicates that educational placement preferences are likely to
be affected by many interacting variables rather than just the
student's primary disabling condition. Further, parent attitudes
toward such practices are likely to be multidimensional, differentiated
by considerations of the impact of inclusive practices on different
domains of educational programming (Anotonak & Larrivee, 1995;
Larrivee, 1992; Schmelkin, 1981; Semmel, Abernathy, Butera, & Lesar,
1991; Wilczenski, 1992).
As it has become clear that the ideal of full inclusion is not
shared universally, the question remains as to what extent the move
toward inclusive practices is consistent with the views and wishes of
parents of students with significant cognitive disabilities; the group
whom advocacy groups associated with the movement appear to represent.
This is an important question because, besides the students themselves,
parents are arguably those most affected by the move toward inclusive
education. Further, parents have historically been the driving force
behind many changes that have occurred in service delivery for
exceptional children, and there is an increased awareness that parent
and family input should be considered in educational decisions made for
their children (Donnellan & Miranda, 1984; Erwin & Soodak, 1995;
Gartner, 1988; Giangreco, Cloninger, Mueller, Yuan, Ashworth, 1991;
Lipski, 1989; Nietupski & Hamre-Nietupski, 1987; Turnbull &
Turnbull, 1990). For the current trend toward inclusive practices for
students with significant cognitive disabilities to continue without
obstruction, wide-scale parent support for such programs must be
present.
While there is a need to understand the views of parents whose
children display significant cognitive disabilities, research in this
area is lacking. In accordance with the historical pattern of leadership
within the inclusion movement, the bulk of the literature regarding
parent perceptions and attitudes has focused on inclusive practices for
children with mild or moderate disabilities (i.e. Hayes & Gunn,
1988; Lowenbraun & Affleck, 1990; Mlynek, Hannah, & Hamlin,
1982). Further, scales designed to measure attitudes toward inclusive
practices have been concerned with perceptions of educators rather than
parents, and address the perceived efficacy of inclusion of students
identified with mild (Semmel et al., 1991) or unspecified (Anotonak
& Larrivee, 1995; Larrivee, 1992; Schmelkin, 1981; Wilczenski, 1992)
disabilities rather than those with severe disabilities.
While studies have emerged that consider parent views of general
class placements for their children with sensory impairments (Giangreco
et al., 1991), as well as parent perceptions regarding such practices as
the placement of students with severe disabilities into programs on
general education campuses (Guralnick, Conner, & Hammond, 1995; Hunt
et al., 1993; McDonnell, 1987; Miller et al., 1992), to date there are
no published empirical studies specifically addressing parent
perceptions of the efficacy of including their own children with
significant cognitive disabilities into general education classrooms.
The unavailability of such research may be in part due to the lack of a
formal attitudinal scale designed to measure such perceptions. The
Parent Attitudes Toward Inclusion (PATI) Scale was designed for this
purpose.
METHOD
Sample
All parents or guardians who had at least one child, from 3 to 22
years of age being served in a public school special day class setting
designed for children with severe disabilities within the areas served
by the Los Angeles County Office of Education, the Orange County
Department of Education, or the North Orange County Special Education
Local Plan Area in California, were contacted for involvement in the
study. The three educational agencies solicited were specifically chosen
for participation in the study based on the wide geographic areas they
cover, and the ethnic and economic diversity of the parent and student
populations they serve.
A further criterion for participation was that the special
education eligibility condition of the child had to include a
significant deficit in cognitive functioning. Therefore, parents of
students who were being served in special day classrooms designed for
severely disabled students whose primary disabling conditions involved
such disabilities as sensory impairments or a serious emotional
disturbance, without comorbidity in significant cognitive disability,
were excluded from the study. To ensure adherence to these sampling
criterion, an administrative authority from each participating
educational agency, who was familiar with characteristics of the special
education programs under the agency's jurisdiction, was involved in
the process o4developing the final lists of parents to be contacted. The
3,267 parents identified through this process were contacted by letter
through the mail and asked to participate in the study.
In response to the 3,267 contact letters sent, 995 surveys were
requested by return postcards. No follow-up material was sent to parents
who did not respond to the initial mailing so as not to impose upon
parents who were being contacted from addresses provided by educational
agencies. Further, the large number of parents initially contacted made
it likely that the final sample would be sufficiently large to assure a
high degree of validity associated with the results of the statistical
procedures conducted. At the conclusion of the data collection phase of
the study, a total of 476 surveys were returned--a 15% rate of return in
reference to the initial mailing and a 48% return rate for those who
requested surveys. Of the 476 surveys returned, 16 were excluded from
data analysis procedures due to incompleteness; therefore, data from 460
surveys were analyzed in subsequent procedures.
Table 1 displays the final sample characteristics of the parents
responding. Modal characteristics indicate that the typical respondent
was the child's mother, was Euro-American, and had some college
education. Only 18.7% of those completing the scale were fathers. The
remaining 11% of respondents were residential caregivers, foster
parents, or nonparental relatives.
Table 2 displays child data. Most students in the sample were not
being mainstreamed at all and only a small percentage (9.5%) spent more
than 3 hr a day in a general education classroom. Further, more of the
children were boys (58%), and the sample contained good representation
from all school age groups, with the mean age being 11.3 years. In
addition, a sizable number of students had conditions that necessitated
specialized school services. For example, almost half (44.4%) of the
sample had problems with mobility while about two thirds (67.2%) had
toilet accidents during the day, or were not toilet trained at all.
Also, many students in the sample needed to be monitored during the day
due to behavioral or emotional problems (39.1%), or due to poor health
(22.6%).
Instrument
The PATI Scale was developed as a subset of a larger survey
instrument designed to identify factors that influence parent
perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant
cognitive disabilities (Palmer et al., 1997). Rather than attempting to
measure a global factor representing perceptions related to inclusion,
the construction of the PATI Scale was based on the premise that
parents' perceptions of inclusive practices are multidimensional.
While there is a lack of existing attitudinal research specifically
focusing on parents whose children display significant cognitive
disabilities, previous research has documented the multidimensional
nature of educators' attitudes toward the inclusion of students
with mild (Semmel et al., 1991) or unspecified (Anotonak & Larrivee,
1995; Larrivee, 1992; Schmelkin, 1981; Wilczenski, 1992) disabilities
into the general education classroom.
The 11 PATI Scale items were designed to delineate parent
perceptions into three hypothesized dimensions: the impact of inclusive
practices on (a) the quality of educational services the child with
disabilities receives, (b) the general education students in the class
where the inclusion takes place, and (c) the treatment and acceptance of
the child with disabilities. Due to the unavailability of research
dealing specifically with perceptions of parents whose children display
significant cognitive delays, these components and individual PATI Scale
question items were based on studies associated with the related topics
of parent perceptions of (a) the placement of their children with severe
(Hunt et al., 1993; McDonnell, 1987) or mild to moderate (Guralnick et
al., 1995; Miller et al., 1992) disabilities into special education
programs on general education campuses as opposed to segregated sites;
(b) the integration of children with sensory impairments (Giangreco et
al., 1991) or mild to moderate disabilities (Hayes & Gunn, 1988;
Lowenbraun & Affleck, 1990; Mlynek et al., 1982) into general
education classrooms; and (c) normalization and community placement
practices (Ferrara, 1979; Larson & Lakin, 1991; Tausig, 1989;
Thurman & Fiorelli, 1979)
The PATI Scale items were phrased to evoke general perceptions of
the efficacy of general class placements for children with significant
cognitive disabilities or to elicit perceptions regarding the effect of
increasing the amount of time the child spends in these settings. For
example, an item designed to assess parent perceptions of the impact of
inclusive practices on acceptance and treatment of their child was
worded, "The more time my child spends in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she would end up feeling lonely or left out
around the regular education students." Refer to Table 3 for a
review of each of the 11 scale items. Directions for the completion of
the PATI Scale were as follows: "The following questions ask how
you feel about having your own child spend part or all of his or her day
in a regular classroom. If your child is already mainstreamed, your
answers will reflect your actual experience with the practice. If your
child has never been mainstreamed, answer according to what you think
may happen." The term "mainstreaming" was used in the
scale due to probable familiarity with the word and possible
unfamiliarity with the more recent phrase, "inclusion." Both
positive and negative phrasing was used for the item statements and the
order of presentation within the scale was randomly determined. Parents
were asked to indicate whether they agreed with each statement presented
by choosing one of six replies with "strongly disagree" and
"strongly agree" anchors. For the purpose of analysis,
negatively worded scale items were reversed scored so that positive
attitudes were always reflected by higher item scores.
RESULTS
Each of the 11 PATI Scale item statements was examined to evaluate
variability of responses, means, frequency distributions, and standard
deviations. All items demonstrated considerable variability, and the
item frequency distributions appeared to be approximately normal. As
shown in columns 2 and 3 of Table 3, item means clustered around the
midpoint (3.5) of the 1-6 rating scale, and the obtained standard
deviations were relatively high, ranging from 1.40 to 1.76.
A principal components analysis was performed on the 11 PATI Scale
items yielding 3 components with Eigenvalues above 1.0, lending support
to the hypothesized three-dimensional structure of the scale. A Harris
Kaiser oblique rotation factor analysis was then conducted on the 11
scale items in order to obtain a three-factor solution with optimal
simple structure. The use of an oblique method of rotation was supported
by an examination of the zero order correlation table associated with
the 11 items that showed a moderate degree of interrelativeness among
the variables, and an a priori expectation that parents who have more
positive attitudes on one dimension are likely to have more positive
attitudes on the other dimensions hypothesized.
The loadings of the PATI Scale items on the three components are
shown in columns 4-6 of Table 3. The manifest three-factor pattern
matrix approaches simple structure, with most items demonstrating
moderate to high loadings on their respective factors and low loadings
on the remaining two factors.
TABLE 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Factor Loadings Associated
with PA TI Scale Analysis
(a) Theoretical mean = 3.5. Negatively worded items were reversed
scored so that the positive attitudes are always reflected by higher
mean scores.
(b) Items are arranged under each factor according to strength of
loading.
(c) Factor mean scores are contained within double parentheses.
Factor 1 was labeled "Quality of Educational Services."
Four scale items defined this component with loadings ranging from .50
to .82. These items concerned the impact of inclusion the child's
opportunities to receive a specialized curriculum and more
individualized attention. A high score on this factor indicates that the
parent believes the quality of his or her child's education will be
preserved in a general education setting, with lower scores indicating
that the parent has some reservations in this regard.
The second factor subsumed five variables, with loadings ranging
from .62 to .77. The items defining this component emphasize parent
perceptions of the social and educational benefits to general class
students resulting from being exposed to a peer with significant
disabilities, as well as the benefits that accrue to their own child
resulting from the chance to socially connect with general class peers.
Accordingly, this factor was labeled, "Mutual Benefits of
Inclusion." This factor also includes an item that assesses
parents' perceptions of the impact of inclusion on their
child's quality of education. The high loading of this item
suggests that parents tend to view the perceived mutual benefits of
inclusive placements as more meaningful indicators of their child's
overall quality of education than such characteristics as opportunities
for a specialized curriculum and more individualized attention as
measured by Factor 1. A high score on Factor 2 demonstrates positive
feelings regarding the mutual benefits of inclusion.
The third factor was termed "Child Acceptance and
Treatment." Two items loaded highly on this component (.56 and
.72), with both assessing parents' perceptions that their child
might feel lonely or be mistreated by other students in the general
education classroom. Higher scores on this component indicate a relative
lack of fear that the child would be mistreated or isolated as a result
of increased inclusion, and lower scores reflect parental concerns that
such problems may occur.
Internal consistency was assessed for each obtained factor using
Cronbach's coefficient alpha. As shown in parentheses following
each factor heading in Table 3, the reliabilities were 'a = .80, `a
= .82, and `a = .66 for the three factors respectively. The
reliabilities for the first two components were clearly adequate, while
the reliability for the third factor was acceptable, but lower, probably
due to the fact that only two items comprised this scale. Additional
analysis found moderate correlation among the factor scores, with the
highest correlation (.73) between Factors 1 and 2 and the lowest
correlation (.36) between Factors 2 and 3.
As a further indication of the existence of the unique dimensional
attributes related to the obtained factors, t-test procedures for
dependent variables were conducted on the mean factor scores presented
in Table 3. The means of all three PATI Scale factors were found to be
significantly different (p [is greater than] .0001) from the means
obtained on the remaining two factors.
A consideration of the obtained factor means leads to some general
conclusions. Parents of students with significant cognitive disabilities
are more positive regarding mutual benefits (Factor 2: M = 4.01) and
acceptance and treatment (Factor 3: M = 3.62) of their child resulting
from the proximity afforded by inclusive practices and least positive
regarding the impact of inclusion on opportunities for a specialized
curriculum and individualized attention (Factor 1: M = 2.80).
DISCUSSION
The presence of considerable variability in PATI Scale item responses
and confirmation of the multidimensionality of parent attitudes toward
inclusive practices reveals the subjective and phenomenological nature
of the reasoning process a parent undergoes when considering educational
placement options. This information suggests that parents can be
expected to have varying views regarding inclusive placement options
based on a broad range of interacting variables rather than on a
singular determinant, such as the cognitive profile of their child.
Practitioners may gain some insight into this complicated reasoning
process through a consideration of the present study findings in
relation to existing views regarding curricular emphasis and inclusion.
It has been suggested that curricular emphasis found in programs
for students with severe disabilities has historically shifted from
remedial academic instruction and functional life skill development to
the development of friendships or social skills between people with
disabilities and their nondisabled peers (Hamre-Nietupski, Nietupski,
& Strathe, 1992), and that those who advocate for the placement of
all students into general education classrooms often view such social
goals as their primary concern (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Empirical data
(Palmer et al., 1997) have also shown that parents of children with
significant cognitive disabilities are more likely to have positive
perceptions of inclusive practices when they place a relatively higher
value on the school's role in developing social skills. An
examination of the PATI Scale factor score means obtained in the present
study further indicates that parents of children with significant
cognitive disabilities are relatively positive regarding the social
outcomes of general class placements, and relatively apprehensive
regarding the impact of such placements on the quality of educational
services their children receive.
It may then be that parents who share the inclusionist view of the
relative importance of socialization are those who would tend to favor
general class placements for their children. These parents are less
likely to be concerned with any perceived negative effects regarding the
impact of inclusion on their child's ability to receive specialized
services. Parents who place a higher value on the development of social
skills may be willing to trade off "special education"
benefits such as: (a) a specialized curriculum, (b) easier access to
ancillary services, and (c) more individualized instruction, for the
social benefits that they consider to be more attainable in a general
education setting. In sum, parent perceptions of inclusive practices may
be largely a function of the value placed on particular curricular
skills and beliefs regarding where those skills can best be nurtured.
It is interesting to note that preferences regarding curricular
focus have also formed the basis of arguments made by advocacy groups
representing students with mild to moderate disabilities who have come
out against the concept of full inclusion for all students. Many of
these groups have denounced the full inclusion position in part because
they are primarily concerned with the school's role in the
remediation of academic skills, which they believe can best be achieved
through access to a continuum of placement options (Borthwick-Duffy et
al., 1996).
Future Research
Researchers can use the PATI Scale to assess parent perceptions
regarding inclusive models of placement and to better understand the
subjective dynamics and underlying influences on different dimensions of
such perceptions. The practice of integrating students with severe
disabilities into general education classrooms is relatively new, and
little empirical research has been done in the area. Ideally, it would
be beneficial to have information regarding actual student outcomes
associated with placement in programs offering varying levels of
inclusion.
Before the results of such a study can be meaningful, however, it
will be necessary to identify, and control for, variables that are more
immediate or substantive than time spent in the general education class.
Under these conditions, longitudinal studies that consider both the
short-and long-term effects of different models of service delivery
could provide parents and educators with important information when
considering the most appropriate program for a particular child. The
PATI Scale factor scores may be used as preand posttest measures to
assess the effects of exposure to such programs on parent attitudes and
support.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
Consideration of the complex dynamics underlying parent preferences
regarding inclusive placement options underscores the need to encourage
family involvement when considering such programs for an individual
child. Parents can be expected to hold strong and often divergent
beliefs about the efficacy of inclusive placements based on perceptions
of how these programs will specifically impact their own child. The PATI
Scale can be used by practitioners to encourage family input and to
better understand the reasoning used by individual parents when
considering inclusive programming. Having specific information regarding
different dimensions of parent perceptions should help school personnel
to better appreciate, and possibly address, parent concerns when
considering placement options for their children. For example, if scale
results indicate that a parent is apprehensive regarding the impact of
inclusion on the quality of their child's educational services
(Factor 1), school personnel can collaborate with this parent to
identify ways to address this concern before the placement is considered
further.
The PATI Scale can also be used for program planning purposes. For
example, those working to begin or expand inclusion programs for
students with significant cognitive disabilities can use the scale to
identify parents who would be most receptive to such placements for
their children.
As stated earlier, it cannot be assumed that all parents whose
children demonstrate significant cognitive disabilities, or any other
characteristic, share the same values regarding the school's role
or curricular emphasis. It is also true that the level of inclusion into
the general education classroom is only one dimension of a child's
school experience, and the amount of time spent in these settings will
not solely determine parent satisfaction with their child's school
program. As has been previously shown (Giangreco et al., 1991.; Green
& Shinn, 1994), parent satisfaction regarding school programs is
most strongly related to such subjective and amorphous determinants as
the presence of caring teachers and the child's sense of
well-being. Those who advocate for a specific model of educational
service delivery must endeavor to make such programs attractive to
parents by emphasizing the development of such qualitatively meaningful
components.
REFERENCES
Anotonak, R. F., & Larrivee, B. (1995). Psychometric analysis and
revision of the opinions relative to mainstreaming scale. Exceptional
Children, 62, 139-149.
Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Palmer, D. S., & Lane, K. L. (1996). One
size doesn't fit all: Full inclusion and individual differences.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 311-329.
Brinker, R., & Thorpe, M. (1984). Integration of severely
handicapped students and proportion of IEP objectives achieved.
Exceptional Children, 51, 168-175.
Davis, W. (1989). The regular education initiative debate: Its
promises and problems. Exceptional Children, 55, 440-446.
Donnellan, A., & Miranda, R (1984). Issues related to
professional involvement with families of individuals with autism and
other severe handicaps. The Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 9, 16-25.
Erwin, E. J., & Soodak, L. C. (1995). I never knew I could stand
up to the system: Families' perpectives on pursuing inclusive
education. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 20, 136-146.
Ferrara, D. (1979). Attitudes of parents of mentally retarded
children toward normalization activities. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 84, 145-151.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the
radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60,
294-309.
Gartner, A. (1988). Parents, no longer excluded, just ignored: Some
ways to do it nicely. Exceptional Parent, 18, 40-41.
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C., Mueller, P., Yuan, S., & Ashworth,
S. (1991). Perspectives of parents whose children have dual sensory
impairments. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, 16, 14-24.
Giangreco, M., Dennis, R., Cloninger, C., Edelman, S., &
Schattman, R. (1993). I've counted Jon: Transformational
experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities.
Exceptional Children, 59, 359-371.
Green, S. K., & Shinn, M. R. (1994). Parent altitudes about
special education and reintegration: What is the role of student
outcomes? Exceptional Children, 61, 269-281.
Guralnick, M. J., Connor, R. T., & Hammond, M. (1995). Parent
perspectives of peer relationships and friendships in integrated and
specialized program. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99,
457-476.
Hamre-Nietupski, S., Nietupski, J., & Strathe, M. (1992).
Functional life skills, academic skills, and
friendship/social/relationship development: What do parents of students
with moderate/severe/profound disabilities value? The Journal of the
Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 53-58.
Hayes, K., & Gunn, P. (1988). Attitudes of parents and teachers
toward mainstreaming. The Exceptional Child, 35, 31-39.
Hunt, P., Haring, K., Farron-Davis, F., Staub, D., Rogers, J.,
Beckstead, S., Karasoff, P., Goetz, L., & Sailor, W. (1993). Factors
associated with the integrated educational placement of students with
severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 18, 6-15.
Katsiyannis, A., Conderman, G., & Franks, D. J. (1995). State
practices on inclusion: A national review. Remedial and Special
Education, 16, 279-287.
Kaufman, J. (1989). The regular education initiative as Regan-Bush
education policy: A trickle down theory of education of the handicapped.
The Journal of Special Education, 23, 256-278.
Larrivee, B. (1992). Factors underlying regular classroom teachers
attitudes toward mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 374-379.
Larson, S. & Lakin, C. (1991). Parent attitudes about residential
placement before and after deinstitutionalization: A research synthesis.
The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16,
25-38.
Lieberman, L. (1985). Special education and regular education: A
merger mace in heaven? Exceptional Children, 51, 513-516.
Lipski, D. K. (1989). The role of parents. In D. K. Lipski & A.
Gartner (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all
(pp. 159-179). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.(*)
Lowenbraun, S. M., & Affleck, J. (1990). Parental satisfaction
with integrated class placements of special education and general
education students. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 37-40.
McDonnell, J. (1987). The integration of students with severe
handicaps into regular public schools: An analysis of parent perceptions
of potential outcomes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 22,
98-111.
Miller, L., Strain, P., Boyd, K., Hunsicker, S., McKinley, J., &
Wu, A. (1992). Parental attitudes toward integration. Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education, 12, 230-246.
Mlynek, S., Hannah, E., & Hamlin, M. (1982). Mainstreaming:
Parental perceptions. Psychology in the Schools, 19, 354-359.
Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1987). An ecological
approach to curriculum development. In L. Goetz, D. Guess, & K.
Stremel-Campbell (Eds.), Innovative program design for students with
dual sensory impairments (pp. 225-253). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Palmer, D. S., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., Widaman, K., & Best, S.
(1997). Influences on parent perceptions of inclusive practices for
their children with severe cognitive disabilities. Manuscript submitted
for publication.
Sawyer, R., McLaughlin, M., & Winglee, M. (1994). Is integration
of students with disabilities happening? An analysis of national data
trends over time. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 204-215.
Schmelkin, L. P. (1981). Teachers' and nonteachers'
attitudes toward mainstreaming. Exceptional Children, 48, 42-47.
Semmel, M. I, Abernathy, T. V., Butera, G., & Lesar, S. (1991).
Teacher perceptions of the Regular Education Initiative. Exceptional
Children, 57, 9-23.
Sharpe, M. N., York, J. L., & Knight, J. (1994). Effects of
inclusion on the academic performance of classmates without
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 15, 281-287.
Staub, D., & Hunt, P. (1993). The effects of social interaction
training on high school peer tutors of schoolmates with severe
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 60, 641-57.
Tausig, M. (1989). Factors in family decision making about placement
for developmentally disabled individuals. American Journal of Mental
Deficiency, 89, 352-361.
Thurman, K., & Fiorelli, J. (1979). Perspectives on
normalization. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 339-346.
Turnbull, A. P., & Turnbull, H. R. (1990). Families,
professionals, and exceptionality: A special partnership (2nd ed.).
Columbus, OH: Merrill.(*)
Wilczenski, F. L. (1992). Measuring altitudes toward inclusive
education. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 306-312.
(*) To order books referenced in this journal, please call 24 hrs/365
days: (800) BOOKS-NOW (266-5766) or (702) 258-3338, ask for ext. 1213,
or visit them on the web at http://www.BooksNow.com/Exceptional
Children.htm. Use Visa, M/C, or AMEX or send check or money order +
$4.95 S&H ($2.50 each add'l item) to: Books Now, 6600 W.
Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, NV89102.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
DAVID S. PALMER, (CEC 538), Assistant Professor, Charter School of
Education, Division of Special Education, California State University,
Los Angeles. SHARON A. BORTHWICKDUFFY, Professor, School of Education;
and KEITH WIDAMAN, Professor, Department of Psychology, University of
California, Riverside.
Correspondence concerning this article and requests for a copy of the
PATI Scale should be addressed to David S. Palmer, at the Charter School
of Education, Division of Special Education, California State
University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles,
California 90032-8144. E-mail may be sent to WSYQ20A@prodigy.com.
This study was funded in part by Grant N. HD22953 from the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Manuscript received August 1996; revision accepted June 1997.
TABLE 1
Sample Characteristics of Parents Responding
Parent Characteristics % of Total Sample
Relation to Child
Mother 70.0
Father 18.7
Other (e.g., group home
supervisor, relative) 11.3
Ethnic Identity
Asian American 9.1
Black/African American 5.4
Hispanic/Latin/American 17.6
White/Euro-American 62.6
Other/No response 5.2
Level of Education
No formal education 1.3
Elementary school 2.0
Some high school 4.8
High school diploma or GED 15.7
Some college 31.5
College degree: 2-Year degree 11.5
College degree: 4-Year degree 14.3
Graduate work 17.6
No response to question 1.3
TABLE 2
Sample Characteristics of Children
Child Characteristics % of Total Sample
Gender
Male 58.0
Female 42.0
Hours currently spent in
general education setting
0 67.9
1 to2 22.6
3 or more 9.5
Age Range
3 to 5 20.7
6 to 8 19.1
Age Range
9 to 11 15.9
12 to 14 16.3
15 to 17 13.9
18 to 20 10.8
21 to 23 3.3
Mean Age 11.3
Those demonstrating characteristics requiring
specialized school services
Unable to walk 22.0
Walks only with help or walks unsteadily 22.4
Is not toilet trained at all 39.1
Has toilet accidents during the day 28.1
Has seizures 22.8
Requires special equipment for mobility 35.4
Takes medication during the day 20.4
Needs medical or quasi-medical procedures to 12.2
be performed during the day
Needs to be monitored for behavioral or 39.1
emotional problems
Needs close supervision during the day due to 22.6
poor health or physical condition
Factor Identity (Coefficient Alpha)
Item Loadings
M SD I
Factor 1: Quality of
Educational Services (.80)
If my child were to spend much
of the day in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
not getting all the necessary
special services that would be
provided in a special
education classroom. 2.66(a) 1.57 .819(b)
If my child were to spend a
lot of time in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
not getting the extra help he/
she needs. 2.67 1.55 .790
It is impossible to modify
most lessons and materials in
a regular classroom to truly
meet the needs of my child. 2.98 1.75 .651
A regular education classroom
provides more meaningful
opportunities for my child to
learn than does a special
education classroom. 2.88 1.60 .502
((2.80))(c)
Factor 2: Mutual Benefits of
Inclusion (.82)
The quality of a regular
education student's education
is enriched when a student
with severe disabilities
participates in his/her class. 4.37 1.40 -.104
When a student with severe
disabilities is enrolled in a
regular education classroom,
the positive benefits to the
regular education students
outweigh any possible problems
that this practice may
present. 3.79 1.50 -.117
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
will be treated kindly by the
nondisabled students in that
room. 4.16 1.40 -.196
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that the
quality of his/her education
will improve. 3.55 1.76 .342
If my child were to spend much
of his/her day in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
becoming friends with
nondisabled students in that
room. 4.16 1.52 .032
((4.01))
Factor 3 Child Acceptance and
Treatment (.66)
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
will be mistreated by other
nondisabled students in that
mom. 3.61 3.61 -.001
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
would end up feeling lonely or
left out around the regular
education students. 3.63 1.54 .189
((3.62))
II III
Factor 1: Quality of
Educational Services (.80)
If my child were to spend much
of the day in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
not getting all the necessary
special services that would be
provided in a special
education classroom. -.123 .027
If my child were to spend a
lot of time in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
not getting the extra help he/
she needs. -.090 .010
It is impossible to modify
most lessons and materials in
a regular classroom to truly
meet the needs of my child. .030 .061
A regular education classroom
provides more meaningful
opportunities for my child to
learn than does a special
education classroom. .428 -2.63
Factor 2: Mutual Benefits of
Inclusion (.82)
The quality of a regular
education student's education
is enriched when a student
with severe disabilities
participates in his/her class. .770 .052
When a student with severe
disabilities is enrolled in a
regular education classroom,
the positive benefits to the
regular education students
outweigh any possible problems
that this practice may
present. .773 .067
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
will be treated kindly by the
nondisabled students in that
room. .690 .270
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that the
quality of his/her education
will improve. .623 -.183
If my child were to spend much
of his/her day in a regular
classroom, he/she would end up
becoming friends with
nondisabled students in that
room. .621 .053
Factor 3 Child Acceptance and
Treatment (.66)
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
will be mistreated by other
nondisabled students in that
mom. .002 .722
The more time my child spends
in a regular classroom, the
more likely it is that he/she
would end up feeling lonely or
left out around the regular
education students. .051 .561