The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher Education

International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education
ISSN: 1034-912X (Print) 1465-346X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20
The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved

in Higher Education towards Students with
Disabilities
M. Tamara Polo Sánchez, Carolina Fernández-Jiménez & María Fernández

Cabezas
To cite this article: M. Tamara Polo Sánchez, Carolina Fernández-Jiménez & María Fernández
Cabezas (2017): The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher Education towards
Students with Disabilities, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, DOI:
10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406066
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406066
Published online: 24 Nov 2017.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 28
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406066
The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher

Education towards Students with Disabilities
M. Tamara Polo Sánchez, Carolina Fernández-Jiménez and María Fernández Cabezas
Department of Evolutionary Psychology and Education, University of Granada, Granada, Spain
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
In this article we analyse the inclusion of students with disabilities Attitudes; disability;
in the field of university attendance, emphasising the importance of education; inclusive
attitudes of teachers as well as the rest of the university community as education; students;
a whole for inclusion to be successful. The effect of variables of gender, students with disabilities;
university; university
education and training and contact with students with disabilities on teachers
these attitudes is also detailed. A scale was applied to assess attitudes
towards disabilities to 2671 participants, including students with and
without disabilities, teachers and administrative and services staff
from the Faculty of Education in a University in Southern Spain. The
results show that in general, the university community has positive
attitudes towards students with disabilities, with differences according
to the group, with university teachers having the most favourable
attitudes. The results are discussed and suggestions for future research
are offered.
Introduction
The approach to the inclusion in ordinary education of students with disabilities is widely
recognised as the most appropriate way to achieve the best for them not only academically
but also for their social and economic welfare. The inclusive model is now a reference in
many educational contexts that see the need to implement this principle (Granada, Pomés,
& Sanhueza, 2013). Inclusive education has been acclaimed as a force for renewing schools
and the way to building more inclusive and equitable societies (Lim & Ireland, 2001). However,
although there have been great advances in primary and secondary education, higher edu-
cation has often proved impossible for these groups, who have had to resort to distance
universities as their only option (Novo & Muñoz, 2012). The theme of inclusion in higher
education has been urged as a matter of great importance in Spain. Increasingly, higher
education institutions have faced the twin challenges of, first, finding ways to ensure equi-
table access routes for students with disabilities, and secondly, to meet the special needs
that may arise. There are barriers that prevent or hinder access to remaining in or graduating
from the institution for students with disabilities, including the tangible factors (such as
infrastructure, teaching methods and forms of communication channels) and those
CONTACT M. Tamara Polo Sánchez tpolo@ugr.es

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. T. POLO SÁNCHEZ ET AL.
considered intangibles (Lissi, Onetto, Zuzulich, Salinas, & González, 2014). One of the factors
that strongly influences the development of inclusive models for diversity in educational
institutions is the attitudes of the community: how diversity is conceptualised, how it is
evaluated emotionally and how it is responded to. Much research has addressed the issue
of attitudes towards inclusion of students with disabilities (Fernández-Batanero, 2008;
Gallego & Rodríguez, 2012; Sánchez & Carrión, 2002). Specifically, this line of study is gaining
momentum as a result of the interaction of many causes, among which are the very relevant
claims of disabled university students themselves (Aguado et al., 2006). Currently, people
with disabilities face various forms of discrimination related to prejudices and negative atti-
tudes that are observed both in society in general and in certain people in particular (Jiménez,
2002). According to Triandis (1971), attitude is an emotionally charged idea that predisposes
people to one class of actions related to a certain type of social situation with three compo-
nents: emotion or the affective component; the idea or cognitive component; and a behav-
ioural component, or predisposition to action.
The issue of social attitudes towards this group is highly relevant because it often affects
in one way or another the possibilities of social integration for people with disabilities,
becoming a decisive variable (Larrivee, 1982), given the correlation between attitudes and
behaviour (Galović, Brojčin, & Glumbić, 2014) which justifies the interest in these attitudes
and makes their modification even more important. The ability to modify and achieve the
change to more positive attitudes through specific intervention programmes has empirical
support (Flórez, Aguado, & Alcedo, 2009).
Studies conducted to reveal attitudes towards disability in education have adopted dif-
ferent perspectives depending on the group they have targeted (Verdugo, Jenaro, & Arias,
2002), and of the variables that are connected to favourable or unfavourable opinions
(Alonso, Navarro, & Vicente, 2008; Gómez & Infante, 2004; López-Ramos, 2004; Moreno,
Rodríguez, Saldaña, & Aguilera, 2006; Polo & López-Justicia, 2006; Polo, Fernández, & Díaz,
2011).
A predominant field of study, the key to social inclusion of people with disabilities, has
been the analysis of the attitudes of university students towards peers or people with disa-
bilities, and therefore interpersonal relationships established with the rest of their colleagues
(Polo & López-Justicia, 2006). Gómez and Infante (2004) collected information on attitudes
presented by Chilean university students towards people with disabilities and to the inte-
gration of ethnic minorities. The results showed that all students had positive attitudes, with
students in the final year of Pedagogy showing significantly more positive attitudes. No
differences were observed in the attitudes among the groups of students with regard to the
variables of age and contact with persons with disabilities. In Spain, various studies have
highlighted the influence of the type of university studies on the attitudes expressed, finding
that these were positive (Alonso et al., 2008; López-Ramos, 2004; Moreno et al., 2006; Polo
& López-Justicia, 2006; Polo et al., 2011), with results that seem to be related to the greater
possibility of contact with persons with disability and higher levels of education (Olson &
Zanna, 1993).
Alonso et al. (2008), analysing the attitudes towards the diversity of university students
found no differences in relation to the gender of the participants; however, according to the
different areas of knowledge, they found more positive scores in the area of Humanities,
and in relation to the last years of the course. López-Ramos (2004) distinguished positive or
negative attitudes according to gender and degree course studied, concluding that the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 3
female students of the University of Extremadura had a more positive attitude towards
persons with disabilities than their male counterparts; and at the same time the students
from the Law and Medicine degree courses had less positive attitudes than in other degrees,
including technical subjects. The most positive attitudes were noted among the students
of education. In this same line, Moreno et al. (2006) evaluated the attitudes of students
enrolled in subjects related to educational care for people with disabilities, finding that in
general, students expressed a positive attitude, although there were significant differences
depending on whether or not contact with persons with disabilities was maintained.
These results coincide with those carried out at in the faculty of Education at the University
of Granada by Polo and López-Justicia (2006) and Polo et al. (2011) who found that these
students presented more positive attitudes towards students with disabilities, which could
be due to the information and training received as well as to the presence in the degrees of
partners with disabilities (Reina, 2003).
It is clear that in recent years the percentage of students with disabilities attending uni-
versity has increased significantly (De la Red, De la Fuente, Gómez, & Carro, 2002). However,
there are few studies that address the influence of this on the perception and/or attitudes
shown by students without disabilities to their disabled colleagues and to disability in gen-
eral. Among the few studies we would highlight that recently conducted by Suriá (2011)
which examines students’ attitudes towards their peers with disabilities according to the
course studied and formative stage.
The body of research aimed at evaluating attitudes towards disability has focused to a
great extent on knowing the opinions of primary and secondary teachers (Chiner, 2011;
Dengra, Durán, & Verdugo, 1991; García & Alonso, 1985; León, 1995; Martín & Soto, 2001;
Martínez & Bilbao, 2011; Parasuram, 2006; Stauble, 2009).
At the university level, several studies have been carried out (Comes, Parera, Vedriel, &
Vives, 2011; Martínez & Bilbao, 2011; Mayo, 2012; Rodríguez-Martín & Álvarez, 2015; Sánchez,
2011; Soto, 2007). Martínez and Bilbao conducted a study with the purpose of knowing the
attitudes of teachers of the University of Burgos, Spain, towards people with disabilities,
taking into account the incidence of socio-demographic variables of gender, educational
centre, years of experience, contact with people with disability and experience in educational
integration. These authors concluded that the attitude of the teachers was one of the main
factors for integration, the contact with people with disabilities training and education hav-
ing a great influence on these attitudes.
Rodríguez-Martín and Álvarez (2015), in a study that sought to identify the attitudes of a
sample of teachers and students found discrepancies in the teaching activities according to
the group surveyed, gender and branch of knowledge. Moreover, authors such as Comes et
al. (2011) and Mayo (2012) inquired into the attitudes of university teachers towards students
with disabilities, pointing to the need to increase teacher education regarding disability in
order to reduce levels of teacher unease, and provide quality education to this group of
students. Recently, Garabal-Barbeira (2015) analysed the attitudes of students and teachers
towards students with disabilities at the University of A Coruña, Spain. Most teachers reflected
that they are not trained to meet the needs of students with disabilities.
In short, as is clear from the literature review, the role of university teachers is of para-
mount importance since the way the teacher responds to disability is essential to transform
education. Thus, our focus is on addressing this issue from a social and educational perspec-
tive that enables us to analyse and reflect on what variables influence teachers’ attitudes
towards disability. This is the axis that guides the present study, to the extent that teachers’
attitudes towards the inclusion of their students in the university community are a powerful
predictor of the quality of education for the inclusion of students with disabilities (Cook,
Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2000).
However, for non-discrimination policies to be effective, comprehensive plans have to
be developed that involve not only teachers and students with and without disabilities,
but also other members of the educational community such as administration and services
staff which justifies their forming part of this study. There is little conclusive information
on this line of research, and among the few studies made is that by Sánchez (2011), in which
the educational and social integration of students with disability was analysed from the
perspectives of teaching and research staff, administration and services staff, students in
general and students with disabilities at the University of Almería. This is s a descriptive,
non-comparative study, in which the ideas, beliefs and attitudes of the different groups are
analysed, according to the variables of age, gender and presence of disability. In the case
of students with and without disabilities, the degree and course variables are set out, and
in the case of teachers, their departments and years of teaching experience are also detailed.
In the health field, Chanatasig, Puga, Sanafria, and Zambrano (2012) explored the attitudes
of teachers, administrative and service personnel, and general services towards persons
with disabilities. A better attitude was observed in all teachers younger than 49 years, but
gender or contact with persons with disabilities were not linked to better attitudes.
Objectives
This article seeks to analyse the attitude towards the inclusion of students with disabilities
in the area of the University classroom, emphasising the importance of teachers’ attitudes
but also that of the rest of the university community as a whole for such inclusion to be
successful.
The objectives of the University are to know the attitudes of students, students with
disabilities, teachers and administrative staff and services of the Faculty of Education of the
University towards students with disabilities. Equally, we seek to analyse the influence of
the variables of gender, studies/training and contact on the attitudes towards persons with
disabilities, given their relevance as shown in the bibliographical review.
Methodology
Sample
In this section the information on the participants of the study is detailed by sector: students,
students with disabilities, university teachers and administration and services staff (Academic
Report of the Faculty of Education Sciences, 2015–2016).
Students. The number of Faculty of Education students who participated in this study was
2521. Almost half were enrolled in the Bachelor of Primary Education (51.1%/1288); 29.6%
(745) in the Bachelor’s degree of Early Childhood Education, 10.4% (263) in the Bachelor of
Pedagogy and 8.9% (225) in Social Education.
Students with Disabilities. Thirty-six students with disabilities were enrolled in the Faculty
of Education, 33 students participated in the study of whom 10 (30.3%) presented physical
or organic disability, 9 (27.3%) visual disability, 1 (3%) mental disability, 2 (6.1%), various
disabilities and finally 2 (6.1%) with other issues unreported in the study. The purpose in
the different applications and the completely voluntary nature of the project were fully
explained to these students so that they could provide comments and suggestions as they
considered appropriate, as well as its anonymity. They were told that they did not need
to reveal the nature of their disability although the great majority did so and they signed
informed consents. The project was approved by the Ethical Committee of the University.
Teaching and Research Staff. The teachers in the Department of Educational Sciences
Faculty consist of about 401 members of whom 265 teach in the building. 79 voluntarily
participated in the study.
Administration and Services Staff. Fifty-two administration and services staff members
approximately are distributed among the Secretariat, Concierge Departments of whom 38
voluntarily participated in the study. Therefore, the university community of the Faculty of
Education was made up of approximately 2671 members, which confirms the extent and
range of the project.
Procedure
The project consisted of two distinct phases that were developed over two academic years.
We used the questionnaire as a tool for gathering information, since the university population
of the Faculty of Education is evaluated in four areas or clusters, that is, students, students
with disabilities, teachers and administration and services staff. In this sense, given the size
of the project, we had support staff, specifically an Icarus Research student (programme
managed by the university business practice). The training of the researcher and the prepa-
ration and management of the tests to be administered was conducted by the project team,
being teachers at the Faculty of Education.
The activity, which, as mentioned above, was voluntary, was offered to all members of
the Faculty of Education. Information-gathering was conducted in the mornings and after-
noons, individually and anonymously. People with disabilities, where necessary, were given
an adapted questionnaire. The time taken to complete it was 45–60 min.
Instrument
The instrument used in the evaluation phase was the Scale of Attitudes towards People with
Disabilities (Verdugo et al., 2002). It is a multidimensional scale developed in Spain, with
studies of reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .92) and validity (one general and another specific to
physical, sensory or mental disabilities). It is considered a useful tool, and has the appropriate
psychometric properties.
The task to be performed by the person assessed is to say whether she or he agrees or
disagrees with each of the phrases that are formulated positively or negatively, with the
following possible opinions: I strongly agree (SA); I quite agree (QA); I partially agree (PA);
partially disagree (PD); I rather disagree (RD); I strongly disagree (SD).
The factorial analysis of the Scale revealed the existence of five factors. Factor 1, termed
Rating of capabilities and limitations (comprising the items numbered 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 13, 16, 21,
29 and 36 on the Scale), which refer to the concept that the respondent has of people with
disabilities. Factor II, called Recognition/Denial of rights (which groups items 6, 9, 12, 14, 15,
17, 22, 23, 27, 35 and 37) and refers to the recognition of fundamental rights of persons with
disabilities. Factor III, Personal involvement, consists of opinions relating to specific interaction
behaviours that the person would carry out in relation to persons with disabilities (it groups
items 3, 5, 10, 11, 25, 26 and 31). Factor IV (items 18, 20, 24, 28 and 34), Generic Qualification
comprises the overall attributes and general qualifications that are made about alleged
defining personality traits or behaviour of people with disabilities. Factor V, Assumption of
roles, is where the respondent makes assumptions about the conception of themselves held
by people with disabilities (it encompasses items 19, 30, 32 and 33).
In addition to the items mentioned in the Scale, we also collected information on age,
sex, education and occupation of the participants. Items relating to contact with disabled
people were also included. They were asked whether or not they maintained contact with
persons with disabilities and, if so, the reason for it (family, work, health care, leisure/friends
or other reasons), frequency (almost permanent, habitual, frequent or sporadic) and the
type of disability that the person had (physical, hearing, visual, mental disability or
multiple).
Results
Statistical software package SPSS Version 20 for Windows was used for structuring, manage-
ment and analysis of data. The variables and their values were defined in order to be encoded.
Subsequently, the data have been introduced to establish a database. It was necessary to
encode the analysis of the responses to those Scale items that expressed negative assess-
ments (1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 15, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35 and 37) conversely in
terms of the values assigned to them in the Scale.
First, a descriptive analysis of the data was conducted. The means and standard deviations
of the variables of the work were calculated and to study the comparisons between groups
a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was made to delimit among what groups
significant differences were observed. In order to organise the results the following headings
were made taking into account the sample and the five factors of the Scale, which are as
follows:
Results of Students
I. Assessment of Capabilities and Limitations
The students’ assessment of the capabilities and limitations of people with disabilities is that
they deemed them to be as smart as other people (M = 1.97; SD = 1.13). They think it is best
to give them simple directions (M = 2.02; SD = 1.11) and entrust them with simple tasks
(M = 2.68; SD = 1.34). They considered that they do not create problems for other workers
(M = 2.38; SD = 1.15. In addition, students considered that persons with disabilities are con-
stant (M = 2.10; SD = 1.18), conscientious (M = 2.18; SD = 1.23) and with a balanced person-
ality (M = 2.31, SD = 1.18), just like other people; thus, they are as competent in their work
as non-disabled people (M = 1.58, SD = .98) and the same results can be expected of them
(M = 1.47, SD = .93). Most of the sample disagreed that people with disabilities function like
children in many respects (M = 2.79; SD = 1.31).
II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

This factor refers to the degree of integration that students believe that people with disa-
bilities should have, and the rights that they should be granted. Overall, students believe
that people with disabilities should have the same rights as other people, including having
fun (M = 1.25; SD = .84) and marrying (M = 1.45; SD = .93). They disagree that they cannot
have children (M = 1.86; SD = 1.26), or borrow money (M = 1.69; SD = 1.15) or vote (M = 1.48;
SD = 1.06). They think they should have the same opportunities for employment as anyone
else (M = 1.82; SD = 1. 20) and must live integrated in society (M = 1.53; SD = .96) and not
exclusively with people affected by the same problem as themselves (M = 1.40; SD = .92).
III. Personal Involvement

This factor refers to the assessment or judgement that students made regarding their inter-
action with people with disabilities. In this sense, students expressed a positive attitude
(M = 1.38; SD = .60), while showing their disagreement with statements arguing the people
with disabilities should be kept separate from society (M = 1.23; SD = .90), or saying they
dislike being with people different from themselves (M = 1.76; SD = 1.34).
IV. Generic Rating

Overall ratings that students have towards the behaviour or personality of the group are
equally positive (M = 2.38; SD = .75), assuming that people with disabilities are sociable
(M = 2.25; SD = 1.17) and they disagree with stereotypes such as that people with disability
are suspicious (M = 2.87; SD = 1.44) or are resentful of people without disabilities (M = 2.13;
SD = 1.27).
V. Assumption of Roles
This emphasises the positive assessment that students make of this factor (M = 2.44; SD = .91),
which refers to the conception that people with disabilities have of themselves. In this sense,
they think that they show confidence (M = 2.65; SD = 1.36) and are satisfied with themselves
(M = 2.73; SD = 1.24).
Results of University Students with Disabilities

Factor I. Assessment of Capabilities and Limitations
The conception that university students with disabilities have towards the group of people
with a disability is positive (M = 1.93; SD = .78). Students disagreed with statements that
describe the person with disabilities as less intelligent (M = 1.48; SD = .97), only able to follow
simple instructions (M = 1.76; SD = .93) and in many aspects they function like children
(M = 2.15; SD = 1.32). Students with disabilities believed instead that people with disabilities
would have as balanced a personality as anyone else (M = 2.06; SD = 1.08) and can be com-
petent professionals (M = 1.58; SD = 1.20).
Factor II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

Students with disabilities, as was to be expected, positively recognise the rights of this col-
lective (M = 1.7; SD = 1.03), meaning that people with disabilities should have equal employ-
ment opportunities (M = 1.49; SD = 1.47) and can do many things as well as people without
disabilities (M = 1.82; SD = 1.59). However, they showed their disagreement on issues such
as prohibiting credit or loans to people with disabilities (M = 1.58; SD = 1.45) or that they
must live together (M = 1.39; SD = .96).
Factor III. Personal Involvement

Personal involvement was the factor where students with disabilities gave the highest rating
(M = 1.56; SD = .98). The students disagreed that people with disabilities should be kept
separate from society (M = 1.61; SD = 1.60), on the contrary being in favour of working with
other people with disabilities (M = 1.42; SD = 1.22).
Factor IV. Generic Rating

Generic scores for students with disabilities on the behaviour or personality of the group
were positive (M = 2.27; SD = 1.06) advocating that people with disabilities are sociable
(M = 2.36; SD = 1.34) and rejecting claims that they are suspicious (M = 2.18; SD = 1.59) or
resentful of people without disabilities (M = 2.15; SD = 1.67).
Factor V. Assumption of Roles

Students with disabilities believed that people with disabilities have a very positive view of
themselves (M = 2.32; SD = 1.02). The students surveyed said that most of the group felt
satisfied with themselves (M = 2.32; SD = 1.42), trusting in their possibilities (M = 2.33;
SD = 1.42) and also felt themselves to be as valuable as anyone else (M = 2.30; SD = 1.26).
Results of Teaching and Research Staff

Teachers have a positive conception of people with disabilities (M = 1.40; SD = 1.06). In this
sense, they believed that people with disabilities have a personality which is as balanced as
that of any other person (M = 1.38; SD = 1.37) and can be competent professionals (M = 1.42;
SD = 1. 42.) In general, the teachers surveyed take issue with the idea that disabled people
are less intelligent (M = 1.27; SD = 1.40) or that they operate in many ways like children
(M = 1.49; SD = 1.35).

The teaching and research staff recognise the rights of people with disability (M = 1.48;
SD = 1.00), arguing that people within this group should have equal employment opportu-
nities (M = 1.38; SD = 1.42) and can do things as well as any other person (M = 1.5; SD = 1.33).
Moreover, they rejected statements that would be contrary to their rights such as those that
argued that they should be confined to special institutions (M = 1.43; SD = 1.45) or should
not be allowed to vote (M = 2.13; SD = 1.56).

This factor received the highest score from teachers (M = 1.70; SD = 1.18). According to the
data, the teachers believed that they would not mind working with people with disabilities
(M = 1.76; SD = 1.54) and were against their being kept apart from society (M = 1.32;
SD = 1.41) or that they would feel displeasure at being around people different from them-
selves (M = 1.66; SD = 1.40).
Factor IV. Generic Qualification

The teachers’ general view on the conduct and traits that define people with disabilities is
positive (M = 1.53; SD = 1.12). The teachers surveyed believe that people with disabilities
are generally sociable (M = 1.43; SD = 1.31) and disagree that they are often bad-tempered
(M = 1.70; SD = 1.33), suspicious (M = 1.16; SD = 1.07) or resentful of people without disabil-
ities (M = 1.70; SD = 1.51).

Finally, teachers consider positive the concept that people with disabilities have of them-
selves (M = 1.99; SD = 1.22). They believe that they show confidence (M = 1.94; SD = 1.41)
and satisfaction with themselves (M = 2.13; SD = 1.61), meaning that they can lead a normal
social life (M = 2.33; SD = 1.49).
Results of Administration and Services Staff

The members of administration and services staff appreciate the capabilities of people with
disabilities (M = 1.70; SD = .64). In this sense, they show their disagreement with the state-
ment that disabled people are less intelligent (M = 1.45; SD = 1.32), are only able to follow
simple instructions (M = 1.53; SD = 1.33) and function like children (M = 2.00; SD = 1.56).
Administration and services staff believe that people with disabilities can be competent
professionals (M = 1.82; SD = .98) with a personality as balanced as any (M = 2.16; SD = 1.70).

Administration and services staff positively recognise the rights of persons with disabilities
(M = 1.71; SD = .67), arguing for example that they should have equal employment oppor-
tunities (M = 1.34; SD = 1.07) can have fun and enjoy themselves with others (M = 1.61;
SD = .94). They reject the idea that people in this group should be confined in special insti-
tutions (M = 1.39; SD = .82) or be barred from voting (M = 2.39; SD = 1.28).

Personal involvement is the factor with the highest rating (M = 1.38; SD = .60). Administration
and services staff disagrees that people with disabilities should be kept away from society
(M = 1.39; SD = 1.07) or that they themselves dislike being around people who look different
(M = 2.29; SD = 1.33). Equally, they think they would not mind working with people with
disabilities (M = 1.63; SD = .99).
Factor IV. Generic Qualification

The qualification that administration and services staff generally give to people with disa-
bilities is positive (M = 1.80; SD = .73). They think people within this group are sociable
(M = 1.58; SD = .97) and disagree that they are suspicious (M = 1.45; SD = 1.08) or often in a
bad mood (M = 2.05; SD = .98).

Administration and services staff believe that people with disabilities have a positive view
of themselves (M = 2.34; SD = .84). In this sense, they think that the members of this group
have self-confidence (M = 2.29; SD = 1.31), are able to lead a normal social life (M = 2.13;
SD = 1.21) and are satisfied with themselves (M = 2.87; SD = 1.54).
After making a descriptive analysis of the different factors that make up the scale, a mul-
tivariate analysis of variance was performed (MANOVA) 4 (groups) × 5 (factors), to analyse
the effects that the variable groups (students, students with disabilities, teachers and admin-
istration and services staff–4) have about different factors that make up the scale of attitude
towards disability (Factor I. Assessment of capabilities and limitations; Factor II Recognition/
Denial of rights; Factor III Personal involvement; Factor IV Generic Rating; Factor V. Assumption
of roles), also showing the means and standard deviations according to the degree course
being studied.
Significant differences were found in the respondent groups in four factors. Analysing
these differences, it appears that generally teachers have more positive attitudes towards
disability. It is the group with the most favourable attitudes in Factor I (Assessment of the
capabilities and limitations) F(3, 2667) = 35,145, p < .00; Factor IV (Generic Rated) F(3, 2667)
= 37,250, p < .00; and Factor V (Assumption of Roles), F(3, 2667) = 6301, p < .00.
In Factor III (personal involvement) the student group scored most positively, F(3, 2667)
= 15,679, p < .00 (Table 1).
Table 1. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and results of MANOVA.

M SD ET F p
Factor I Students 2.15 .682 .014 35,145 .000
Students with disabilities 1.93 .781 .136
Teaching and research staff 1.40 1.068 .120
Administration and services staff 1.70 .640 .104
Factor II Students 1.61 .616 .012 1697 .165
Students with disabilities 1.73 1.033 .180
Factor III Students 1.38 .609 .012 15,679 .000
Students with disabilities 1.56 .984 .171
Factor IV Students 2.38 .755 .015 8664 .000
Factor V Students 2.44 .917 .018 6301 .000
Note: Variables group and attitudes (factors).
In addition, thirdly, a multivariate analysis of variance was performed to study the rela-
tionship between the attitudes and group, and the variables of gender, training/studies and
contact with persons with disabilities.
To test the role played by gender, a new MANOVA 2 (gender) × 5 (factors) analysis was
carried out. The results indicated that there were significant gender differences in factor II
(Recognition/Denial of Rights), F(2, 2668) = 13,078, p < .000, Factor III (Personal Involvement)
F(2, 2668) = 21,469, p < .000, and Factor IV (generic rating) F(2, 2668) = 8664, p < .000, with
women having the higher scores. Although this analysis showed differences between men
and women, considering the sample as a whole, we were interested to know whether or not
these differences depended on the groups. For this reason, a new MANOVA 4 (group and
gender) × 5 (factors) was performed, whose results indicated that there were significant
gender differences associated with the groups, Wilks Lambda = .977, F(25, 000) = 2438,
p < .000. In Factor II (Recognition/Denial of Rights), Factor III (Personal Involvement) and
Factor IV (Generic Qualification), it was the students with and without disabilities who
obtained more positive scores, compared to the teaching and researching staff, and admin-
istration and services staff.
Fourthly, to investigate the influence of the studies/training of the participants on their
attitudes, a new MANOVA 6 (studies) × 5 (factors) analysis was carried out. The results indi-
cated that there were significant differences depending on studies/training in Factor I
(Assessment of capacities and limitations), F(6, 2664) = 7470, p < .000; Factor III (Personal
Involvement) F(6, 2664) = 3647, p < .001, and factor IV (Generic Rating) F(6, 2664) = 6428,
p < .000, those with a Bachelor’s degree and/or Diploma achieving the highest scores.
Although in this analysis differences appeared in relation to the studies/training obtained,
we wanted to know whether or not these differences depended on the groups to which the
participants belonged. No significant differences were found in this aspect, Wilks
Lambda = .971, F(55, 000) = 1425, p < .021.
Fifthly, to check the influence of contact with people with disabilities, a new MANOVA 2
(contact) × 5 (factors) analysis was carried out. As can be seen in Table 2, there are significant
differences depending on contact in Factor I (Assessment of capacities and limitations), F(2,
2668) = 23,380, p < .000; Factor III (Personal Involvement) F(2, 2668) = 26233, p < .000, and
Factor IV (Generic Rating) F(2, 2668) = 33,782, p < .000, the respondents who maintained
contact with people with disabilities obtaining the most positive scores. The results indicated
that there were no significant differences between the participating groups as a function of
Table 2. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and MANOVA results.

M SD ET F P
Factor I No 2.18 .698 .019 23,380 .000
Yes 2.10 .681 .020
Factor II No 1.63 .640 .018 2164 .115
Yes 1.58 .607 .018
Factor III No 1.44 .646 .018 26,233 .000
Yes 1.31 .574 .017
Factor IV No 2.44 .769 .021 33,782 .000
Yes 2.29 .753 .022
Factor V No 2.46 .928 .026 1779 .169
Yes 2.41 .901 .026
Note: Variables of contact and attitudes (factors).
the contact maintained with persons with disabilities, Wilks Lambda = .990, F(20, 000) =
1324, p < .151.
Discussion and Conclusions

Currently, the number of students with disabilities in universities is increasing (Chiny, Salas,
& Vargas, 2008; De la Red et al., 2002; Novo, Muñoz, & Calvo, 2011). One of the most important
barriers that these students face, in addition to the physical ones, are the attitudes that their
colleagues, administration and services staff or teachers have to disability (Flórez et al., 2009;
Luque de la Rosa & Gutiérrez, 2014; Martínez & Bilbao, 2011; Suriá, Bueno, & Rosser, 2011).
If those attitudes are negative, these prejudices become limiting even when students with
disabilities have the same opportunities as other colleagues, besides resulting in a lower
percentage of success in the teaching-learning process. Studies show that attitudes in the
university community have been improving over the years (Alemany & Villuendas, 2004), as
in this study.
The present study aims to compare attitudes towards people with disabilities by students
with disabilities, students without disabilities, administrative and services staff and teachers
and researchers of the Faculty of Education at a Spanish University. It is a pioneer analysis
in the sense that it takes into account the attitudes of the entire university community.
Sánchez (2009, 2011) and Sánchez and Carrión (2010) have conducted similar studies at the
University of Almería, with students with and without disabilities, teachers and administrative
and service staff whose aim was not so much to compare the attitudes of the different groups,
but to describe the ideas and attitudes towards integration of students with disabilities.
Chanatasig et al. (2012) performed a study comparing the attitudes of teachers, administra-
tive and services staff, and general services and similarly to this study, teachers had more
positive attitudes than the rest of the participants.
The studies that have focused on students point to a positive attitude towards students
with disabilities at the university level, reaching the highest levels in Education students
compared to those taking more technical courses (Alonso et al., 2008; López-Ramos, 2004;
Suriá et al., 2011).The data collected in the degrees of Primary Education, Early Childhood
Education, Pedagogy and Social Education show that students without disabilities believe
their peers with disabilities are just as intelligent and competent as the rest, should have the
same rights as everyone else, should be integrated into society, are sociable, are satisfied
with themselves and have self-confidence, accepting their disabilities. These data corroborate
the information obtained by Moreno et al. (2006) who emphasised that students are very
much in agreement that people with disabilities should live integrated in society and trust
in themselves. These attitudes also correspond with the results of various studies, such as
those carried out by Suriá (2011), Novo and Muñoz (2012) and Polo and López-Justicia (2006),
which found that the attitude of university students supports the inclusion of their peers
with disabilities. In accordance with the results obtained, contact with persons with disabil-
ities appeared to influence the students’ attitudes (Moreno et al., 2006; Polo et al., 2011; Suriá,
2011); as did the variable of gender, females presenting the most positive attitudes (López-
Ramos, 2004), although in some studies no significant differences were found (Alonso et al.,
2008; Moreno et al., 2006). A possible future line of research would be to check what happens
throughout the various courses, since studies like that of Alonso et al. (2008) and Gómez
and Infante (2004) suggest that attitudes are more positive in the last year of the degree,
including graduate students (Suriá, 2001).
In relation to students with disabilities, they see themselves as balanced, capable and
professionally competent. The variable that scores highest is that they consider they should
not live apart from the rest of society. They consider themselves to be sociable and not
suspicious of other students.
The attitude of teachers to students with disabilities is positive, as indicated by other
studies like that of Martínez and Bilbao (2011). They see them as competent future profes-
sionals, with the same rights as others and believe they should be integrated into society,
the factor of whether they would work with peers with disabilities being the one that scored
highest.
As Parasuram (2006) notes, the attitudes of teachers towards students with disabilities
influence their emotional, social and intellectual development. These attitudes depend on
many factors; for example, García and Alonso (1985) point out that teachers’ attitudes are
influenced largely by the level of their training, knowledge, contacts and experience with
students with disabilities. Parasuram’s study revealed that the development of attitudes
towards disability, teaching experience, the characteristics of students, having time and
support resources and teacher education and training were also important (Comes et al.,
2011; Garabal-Barbeira, 2015; Mayo, 2012). In this study, we would point out that there are
significant differences according to education and training, those with a degree or diploma
and therefore those with more education, who had the highest scores. These results, as Reina
(2003) established, would confirm that our attitudes are determined by our beliefs, and these
in turn are the product of our experiences and knowledge.
It is true that in the Faculty of Education of this University, the number of students with
disabilities is relatively high, which may influence the respondents when presenting positive
attitudes. The same authors also state that novice teachers are more positive than those
with more years of experience, an aspect that warrants further investigation in the future.
Another of the groups studied, the administrative and service staff believe that people
with disabilities should have the same rights, that they are noted for being sociable, with
high self-esteem and to a great extent, considered that people with disabilities should not
live apart, but to be integrated into society.
In future works a more comprehensive examination based on these data should be made
in order to analyse the differences between different degrees and to study the importance
of having contact with students with disabilities in the university. These are both variables
that influence the development of positive attitudes towards disability.
In sum, we know the factors that influence the acquisition of negative attitudes, such as,
for example, lack of time, lack of adequate teaching resources or lack of support and coor-
dination (Dengra et al., 1991), and those factors which enable positive attitudes to develop:
information and contact with people with disabilities, working in small groups, cooperative
work, interpersonal skills training or mentoring programmes by colleagues and others (Flórez
et al., 2009). Therefore, we suggest the need to carry out advisory and support programmes
for the university community. As Luque de la Rosa and Gutiérrez (2014) and Polo et al. (2011)
indicate, it is necessary to provide the university community with information, and ultimately
to sensitise and encourage such attitudes throughout the university, as they are learned
throughout life (Aguado et al., 2006; Alonso et al., 2008). In the sphere of education, disability
is a reality of the utmost importance that interests the whole educational community,
involving students, teachers and administrative and services staff, since the acceptance and
socialisation of students with disabilities depends on them (Chanatasig et al., 2012).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for its collaboration and that of all the people who took part in this research.
We appreciate the cooperation of the University of Granada.
Disclosure Statement
No financial interest or benefit arises from the direct application of this research.
Funding
This work was supported by ACEFI (PID 13-40), of the PROGRAMA DE INNOVACIÓN Y BUENAS PRÁCTICAS
of the University of Granada.
References
Aguado, A. L., Alcedo, M. A., González, M., García, L., Cuervo, J., Real, S., & Casares, M. J. (2006). La
Universidad de Oviedo y los estudiantes con discapacidad [The University of Oviedo and students
with disability]. Intervención Psicosocial, 15(1), 49–63.
Alemany, I., & Villuendas, M. D. (2004). Las actitudes del profesorado hacia el alumnado con necesidades
educativas especiales [Teachers’ attitudes to students with special educational needs. Convergence].
Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 11(34), 183–215. Retrieved from: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.
oa?id=10503408
Alonso, M. J., Navarro, R., & Vicente, L. (2008). Actitudes hacia la diversidad en estudiantes universitarios
[Attitudes towards diversity in university students]. Jornades de Foment de la Investigació. Universitat
Jaume, I, 1–16. Retrieved from http://www.uji.es/bin/publ/edicions/jfi13/44.pdf
Chanatasig, I., Puga, T. M., Sanafria, P. E., & Zambrano, M. C. (2012). Actitudes de docentes, personal
administrativo y servicios generales de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad Central del
Ecuador hacia las personas con discapacidad, 2011 [Attitudes of teachers, administrative staff and
general services of the Medical Sciences Faculty of the Central University of Ecuador towards persons
with disability] (Degree thesis). Universidad of Quito, Ecuador. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/usuario/
AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/INetCache/IE/TGGDVKUM/T-UCE-0006-15%20(1).pdf
Chiner, E. (2011). Las percepciones y actitudes del profesorado hacia la inclusión del alumnado con
necesidades educativas especiales como indicadores del uso de prácticas educativas en el aula
[Perceptions and attitudes of teachers towards the inclusion of students with special educational needs as
indicators of the use of educational practices in the classroom] (Doctoral thesis). University of Alicante,
Spain. Retrieved from http://rua.ua.es/dspace/handle/10045/19467
Chiny, J., Salas, K., & Vargas, M. C. (2008). Accesibilidad para ingresar a la educación superior: Desafíos y
logros desde el enfoque de la diversidad [Accessability for admission to higher education: Challenges
and successes from the approach of disability.] Revista. Educare, 12(1), 71–82.
Comes, G., Parera, B., Vedriel, G., & Vives, M. (2011). La inclusión del alumnado con discapacidad en
la Universidad: La opinión del profesorado [The inclusion of students with disability: The teachers’
opinion]. Innovación educativa, 21, 173–183.
Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2000). Teachers attitudes toward their included
students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 115–135.
De la Red, N., De la Fuente, R., Gómez, M. C., & Carro, L. (2002). El acceso a los estudios superiores de las
personas con discapacidad física y sensorial [Access to higher studies of people with physical and sensorial
disability]. Valladolid: Secretariado de Publicaciones e Intercambio Editorial.
Dengra, R., Durán, R., & Verdugo, M. A. (1991). Estudio de las variables que afectan a los maestros hacia
la integración escolar de niños con necesidades educativas especiales [Study of the variables that
affect teachers in the educational integration of children with special educational needs]. In Anuario
Español e Iberoamericano de Investigación en Educación Especial (pp. 47–48). Madrid: CEPE.
Fernández-Batanero, J. M. (2008). La investigación en educación especial. Líneas educativas y
perspectivas de futuro [Research in special education. Educational lines and future perspectives].
Perfiles educativos, 119, 7–32.
Flórez, M. A., Aguado, A., & Alcedo, M. A. (2009). Revisión y análisis de los programas de cambio
de actitudes hacia personas con discapacidad [Revision and analysis of programmmes towards
changing attitudes towards peopole with disability]. Anuario de Psicología Clínica y de la Salud, 5,
85–98.
Gallego, J. L., & Rodríguez, A. (2012). Bases teóricas y de investigación en educación especial [Theoretical
bases of research in special education]. Madrid: Pirámide.
Galović, D., Brojčin, B., & Glumbić, N. (2014). The attitudes of teachers towards inclusive education in
Vojvodina. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(12), 1262–1282.
Garabal-Barbeira, J. (2015). Actitudes de docentes y estudiantes hacia la discapacidad en la Universidad
da Coruña [Attitudes of teachers and students towards disability in the University of Corunna]. Revista
de Estudios e Investigación en Psicología y Educación, 11, 11–19. doi:10.17979/reipe.2015.0.11.220
García, J. N., & Alonso, J. C. (1985). Actitudes de los maestros hacia la integración escolar de niños con
necesidades especiales [Teachers’ attitudes towards the integration of children with special needs].
Infancia y Aprendizaje, 30, 51–68 http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=667387
Gómez, V., & Infante, M. (2004). Actitudes de los estudiantes de educación hacia la integración de las
personas con discapacidad y hacia la educación multicultural [Attitude of educational students
towards the integration of people with disability and towards multicultural education]. Cultura y
Educación, 16, 371–383.
Granada, M., Pomés, M. P., & Sanhueza, S. (2013). Actitud de los profesores hacia la inclusión educativa
[Attitude of teachers to inclusive education]. Papeles del Trabajo, 25, 51–59.
Jiménez, R. (2002). Las personas con discapacidad en la Educación Superior. Una propuesta para la
Diversidad e Igualdad [People with disability in higher education. A proposal for diversity and
equality]. San José: Fundación Justicia y Género.
Larrivee, B. (1982). Factors underlying regular classroom teachers’ attitude toward mainstreaming.
Psychology in the Schools, 19, 374–379.
León, M. J. (1995). Las actitudes del profesor tutor de alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales en
su aula, acerca de la integración escolar. Una revisión de las investigaciones del campo [The attitudes
of the teacher-tutor of students with special educational needs in the classroom, about student
integration. A review of field research]. Revista de Educación de la Universidad de Granada, 8, 141–152.
Lim, L., & Ireland, R. (2001). Inclusive education. International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education, 48(3), 313–316.
Lissi, M. R., Onetto, V., Zuzulich, M., Salinas, M., & González, M. (2014). Aprender a través de enseñanza.
Análisis de la experiencia de tutores de estudiantes con discapacidad sensorial o motora, en un
contexto universitario [Learning through teachng. Analysis of the experience of tutors of students
with sensorial or motor disability in the university context]. Revista Latinoamericana de Educación
Inclusiva, 8(1), 109–126.
López-Ramos, V. M. (2004). Estudio sobre las actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidad entre los
estudiantes de la Universidad de Extremadura [Study on the attitudes towards people with disability
among the students of the University of Extremadura] (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of
Extremadura, Spain.
Luque de la Rosa, A., & Gutiérrez, R. (2014). La integración educativa y social del alumnado con
discapacidad en el EESS: Universidad de Bolonia [Educational and social integration of students with
disability in European Higher Educational Area]. Revista Complutense de Educación, 25(1), 153–175.
Martín, D., & Soto, A. (2001). La atención a la diversidad. Una cuestión de actitudes
[Attention to diversity. A question of attitudes]. XXI. Revista de Educación, 3, 149–157.
Retrieved from http://rabida.uhu.es/dspace/bitstream/handle/10272/321/b11992967.
pdf;jsessionid=6FB8F723253F3C57CF03FF9437C33C99?sequence=1
Martínez, M. A., & Bilbao, M. C. (2011). Los docentes de la universidad de Burgos y su actitud hacia las
personas con discapacidad [Teachers of Burgos University and their attitude towards persons with
disability]. Siglo Cero. Revista Española sobre Discapacidad Intelectual, 42(4), 50–78.
Mayo, M. E. (2012). La atención a la diversidad en las aulas universitarias: Necesidades y dificultades del
personal docente e investigador [Attention to diversity in university classrooms: Needs and dificulties
of teachers and researchers]. Retrieved from http://diversidad.murciaeduca.es/publicaciones/
dea2012/docs/emayo2.pdf
Memoria Académica de la Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación [Academic Report of the Faculty of
Educational Sciences]. (2015–2016). Retrieved from http://fcce.ugr.es/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=198&Itemid=228
Moreno, F. J., Rodríguez, I. R., Saldaña, D., & Aguilera, A. (2006). Actitudes ante la discapacidad en el
alumnado universitario matriculado en materias afines [Attitudes to disability in university students
enrolled in similar studies]. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 40, 1–7.
Novo, I., & Muñoz, J. M. (2012). Los estudiantes universitarios ante la inclusión de sus compañeros con
discapacidad: Indicadores basados en la Teoría de la Acción Razonada para los estudios de economía
y empresa en la Universidad de A Coruña [University students about the inclusion of classmates with
disability: Indicators based on the Theory of Reasoned Action for Economics and Business Studies in
the University of Corunna]. REOP. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 23(2), 105–122.
Retrieved from http://www.uned.es/reop/pdfs/2012/23-2%20-%20Novo.pdf
Novo, I., Muñoz, J., & Calvo, C. (2011). Análisis de las actitudes de los jóvenes universitarios hacia la
discapacidad: Un enfoque desde la teoría de la acción razonada [Analysis of the attitude of young
university students to disability an approach from the theory of action]. Revista electrónica de
investigación y evaluación educativa, 17(2), 1–24.
Olson, J. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44,
117–154.
Parasuram, K. (2006). Variables that affect teachers’ attitudes towards disability and inclusive education
in Mumbai, India. Disability & Society, 21(3), 231–242. Retrieved from http://files.embedit.in/
embeditin/files/DXiN2DVpJD/1/file.pdf
Polo, M. T., & López-Justicia, M. D. (2006). Actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidad de estudiantes
de la Universidad de Granada [Attitudes of students of the University of Granada towards people
with disability]. REOP. Revista Española de Orientación y Psicopedagogía, 17, 195–211.
Polo, M. T., Fernández, C., & Díaz, C. (2011). Estudio de las Actitudes de Estudiantes de Ciencias Sociales
y Psicología: Relevancia de la Información y Contacto con Personas Discapacitadas [Study of the
attitudes of students of social sciences and psychology: Relevance of information and contact with
persons with people with disability]. Universitas Psychologica, 10(1), 113–123.
Reina, R. (2003). Propuesta de intervención para la mejora de actitudes hacia personas con discapacidad
a través de actividades deportivas y recreativas [Proposed intervention to improve attitudes towards
persons with disability through sporting and recreational interventions]. Revista digital efdeportes,
59. Retrieved from http://www.efdeportes.com/efd59/discap.htm
Rodríguez-Martín, A., & Álvarez, E. (2015). Universidad y discapacidad. Actitudes del profesorado y
de estudiantes [University and disability. Attitudes of teachers and students]. Perfiles educativos,
37(147), 86–102.
Sánchez, A. (2009). Integración educativa y social de estudiantes con discapacidad en la Universidad de
Almería [Educational and social integration of students with disability in the University of Almeria].
Almería: Editorial de la Universidad de Almería.
Sánchez, A. (2011). La Universidad de Almería ante la integración educativa y social de los estudiantes
con discapacidad: Ideas y actitudes del personal docente e investigador [The University of Almeria
towards educational and social integration of students with disability: Ideas and attitudes of teachers
and researchers]. Revista de Educación, 354, 575–603. Enero-Abril.
Sánchez, A., & Carrión, J. J. (2002). Una aproximación a la investigación en Educación Especial [An
approach to research in special education]. Revista de Educación, 327, 225–247.
Sánchez, A., & Carrión, J. J. (2010). Los estudiantes con discapacidad en la Universidad de Almería:
Ideas y Actitudes sobre su integración Educativa y Social [Students with disability in the University
of Almeria: Ideas and attitudes on educational and social integration]. European Journal of Education
and Psychology, 3(2), 329–341.
Soto, R. (2007). Actitudes docentes de la Universidad de Costa Rica hacia los(as) estudiantes con
discapacidad de la Universidad [Teachers’ attitude of the University of Costa Rica towards students
with disability]. Revista Educación, 31(1), 11–42.
Stauble, K. R. (2009). Teacher attitudes toward inclusion and the impact of teacher and school variables.
Louisville, KY: University of Louisville.
Suriá, R. (2011). Análisis comparativo sobre las actitudes de los estudiantes hacia sus compañeros con
discapacidad [Comparative analysis on the attitudes of students towards classmates with disability].
Revista Electrónica de Investigación Psicoeducativa [Electronic Journal of Research in Educational
Psychology], 9(1), 197–216.
Suriá, R., Bueno, A., & Rosser, A. M. (2011). Prejuicios entre los estudiantes hacia las personas con
discapacidad: Reflexiones a partir del caso de la Universidad de Alicante [Prejudices among students
towards persons with disability: Reflections based on the case of the University of Alicante].
Alternativas, 18, 5–90.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York, NY: Wiley.
Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C., & Arias, B. (2002). Actitudes sociales y profesionales hacia las personas con
discapacidad: Estrategias de evaluación e intervención [Social and professional attitudes towards
persons with disability: Strategies of evaluation and intervention]. In M. A. Verdugo (Dir.), Personas
con discapacidad. Perspectivas psicopedagógicas y rehabilitadoras (pp. 79–135). Madrid: Siglo XXI
Editores.

The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher Education

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Disability, Development and

ISSN: 1034-912X (Print) 1465-346X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved

M. Tamara Polo Sánchez, Carolina Fernández-Jiménez & María Fernández

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2017.1406066

Published online: 24 Nov 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

The Attitudes of Different Partners Involved in Higher

CONTACT M. Tamara Polo Sánchez tpolo@ugr.es

II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

III. Personal Involvement

IV. Generic Rating

Results of University Students with Disabilities

Factor II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

Factor III. Personal Involvement

Factor IV. Generic Rating

Factor V. Assumption of Roles

Results of Teaching and Research Staff

Factor II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

Factor III. Personal Involvement

Factor IV. Generic Qualification

Factor V. Assumption of Roles

Results of Administration and Services Staff

Factor II. Recognition/Denial of Rights

Factor III. Personal Involvement

Factor IV. Generic Qualification

Factor V. Assumption of Roles

Table 1. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and results of MANOVA.

Table 2. Mean (M), standard deviation (SD) and MANOVA results.

Discussion and Conclusions

You might also like