Content uploaded by John Freer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Freer on Jan 07, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The effects of the Tripartite Intervention on
students’attitudes towards disability
John R. R. Freer
1,2
1
School of Community Studies, St. Clair College;
2
Faculty of Education, University of Windsor
Key words: attitude, disability, ableism, intervention, inclusion.
Poor attitudes towards disability held by one’s
peers can negatively impact the social experi-
ences of students with exceptionalities. Fortu-
nately, educational intervention efforts can serve
to enhance children’s attitudes towards disability.
This quasi-experimental study tested the effective-
ness of the Tripartite Intervention (TI), a 12-lesson
educational intervention aimed at improving stu-
dents’attitudes towards disability. Two Grade 4
classes from a large rural school in Southwestern
Ontario made up the control and experimental
groups. The CATCH scale was used to measure
students’attitudes towards disability before and
after the intervention. 2 32 mixed ANOVAs were
calculated to measure the effectiveness of the
intervention. There was a significant main effect
for time, but a non-significant interaction effect
when global attitude scores were examined. A sig-
nificant interaction effect was found, however, for
the cognitive dimension. These findings indicate
that the TI had an impact on how students thought
about disability. Determinant factors were also
examined. Having a family member was associated
with more positive attitudes towards disability,
whereas self-reported gender and friendship with
someone who has a disability were not. Replication
studies on the effects of the TI with larger and
more diverse samples are needed.
Introduction
Educational inclusion is a philosophy that embraces the
idea that all students should be made to feel welcome and
a part of their class (Specht and Bennett, 2013). Although
educators and administrators can help to create a culture
of inclusion, the student body holds a great deal of power
in the social arena. Students with exceptionalities are often
excluded from their same-age peer groups (Petry, 2018).
Negative attitudes towards disability, also known as able-
ism, may be at the heart of this issue. To break down this
attitudinal barrier, children’s attitudes towards disability
need to be critically analysed. Fortunately, educational
interventions can have long-term effects on students’atti-
tudes towards disability (Rillotta and Nettelbeck, 2007).
Approaches to educational interventions aimed at enhanc-
ing students’attitudes towards disability vary, as do their
effectiveness. One area of interest has been the dimen-
sions of attitude (i.e., affect, behaviour and cognition)
targeted in these interventions. Many educational inter-
ventions have sought to change attitudes by simply teach-
ing students about disability, which focuses exclusively
on the cognitive dimension of attitude (e.g., Lloyd et al.,
2017). Other studies have explicitly targeted two of the
dimensions (e.g., Giagazoglou and Papadaniil, 2018).
Only a handful of studies have compared interventions
targeting one and two dimensions of attitude. For exam-
ple, Loovis and Loovis (1997), as well as Krah
e and Alt-
wasser (2006), found a cognitive-behavioural intervention
to be significantly more effective at enhancing students’
attitudes towards disability compared to a cognitive-only
intervention. Still yet, very few scholars have targeted all
three dimensions of attitude and those that have (e.g.,
Rillotta and Nettelbeck., 2007) have not done so explic-
itly. To address this gap in the literature, the Tripartite
Intervention (TI) was developed (Freer, 2021a) in an
effort to test the effectiveness of an intervention that
explicitly targets all three dimensions of attitude.
Method
Research design
A quasi-experimental design was conducted. Individual
students were not randomly assigned to the experimental
or control conditions. The intervention was administered
within established Grade 4 classes at a publicly funded
school during regular class time, making randomisation
impractical. For quasi-experimental studies, such as this,
Cohen et al., (2007) advised researchers ‘to use samples
from the same population or samples that are as alike as
possible’(p. 283). Both the control and experimental
group were recruited from the same grade level and
school, which decreased the number of possible con-
founding variables. Students in both the experimental and
control groups had their attitudes towards disability mea-
sured with the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes Towards
Children with Handicaps (CATCH) scale before and after
the intervention period to gauge the effectiveness of the
TI. In the control condition (i.e., the X condition),
ª2021 NASEN18
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs Volume 22 Number 1 2022 18–30
doi: 10.1111/1471-3802.12512
students were not exposed to an intervention between the
pre-test and post-test measurements. This class continued
with their regularly scheduled activities; there was no
intervention for comparison. Students assigned to the
experimental condition (i.e., CBA condition) were
exposed to the newly developed TI.
Measurement tool
The CATCH scale was originally developed in Ontario,
Canada, for students in Grades 4 to 8 (Rosenbaum et al.,
1986). Vignes et al., (2008) identified and evaluated 19
different metrics that are commonly used for measuring
children’s attitudes towards disability and determined that
the CATCH scale and Acceptance scale were the two
most complete instruments. The CATCH scale is still
used regularly to assess students’attitudes towards dis-
abilities. In fact, Macmillan et al., (2014) noted that the
CATCH scale was the most commonly utilised instrument
for measuring students’attitudes towards disability in the
studies included in their review, which spanned from
1966 to 2011. This finding was consistent in a more
recent review of the literature (Freer, 2021b). In addition,
the CATCH scale has been used internationally and trans-
lated into different languages (e.g., Blackman, 2016; God-
eau et al., 2010; Holtz and Tessman, 2007).
Students reported their level of agreement/disagreement
with each of the statements using a 5-point Likert scale.
These statements were updated to person-first language
with permission. The CATCH scale consists of global
and dimensional scores, with higher scores representing
more positive attitudes. This scale consists of 36 state-
ments in total, with a 12-item subscale for each of the
three dimensions of attitude. The scale is balanced with
half of the statements negatively framed and the other
half positively framed. Despite the balanced structure of
the scale and apparent face validity, researchers have
questioned the factorial validity of the CATCH scale
(Armstrong et al., 2017; Bossaert and Petry, 2013; Rosen-
baum et al., 1986).
Sample
Upon receiving Research Ethics Board (REB) clearance
and permission to conduct research from the school
board, two Grade 4 classes in a large rural school were
selected to participate in this study. The experimental
class had 26 students, and the control class had 25 stu-
dents. There were 51 potential participants at the start of
the study, and data were ultimately analysed from 38 of
these students (i.e., 74.51%). Written parental consent
and student assent were sought. Of the 51 students, par-
ental consent forms were returned for 48 of the students
and 43 agreed to have their child’s data analysed. Forms
that were not returned were treated as non-consents, and
these students’data were not included in the analysis. In
terms of student assent, one student did not wish to be a
part of the research project. Once data collection began,
one participant in the experimental class withdrew from
the study. Two additional students in the experimental
group were excluded from the study because they missed
or were unable to participate in 20% or more of the inter-
vention lessons. Given that this quasi-experimental study
lacked randomisation, a per-protocol analysis was used
with an intervention compliance of 80% or greater atten-
dance/ participation (Hern
an and Robins, 2017). Finally,
one student from the control group was removed before
data analyses due to unusable data.
The final sample included 21 students in the experimental
group and 17 students in the control group for a total of
38 participants with a participation rate of 74.5% or 38 of
the 51 students (see Figure 1). This sample size, while
small, meets the minimum requirement of 34 participants
according to the G*Power analysis (Faul et al., 2007).
For the calculation of sample size, an alpha of 0.05 and a
beta of 0.80 were used, which is standard practice when
estimating sample size (Jones, et al., 2003). This sample
size is in line with some other small intervention studies
conducted in this field (e.g., Giagazoglou and Papadaniil,
2018; Novak and Bartelheim, 2012). Of course, larger
samples are desired to increase the reliability and validity
of the findings. For a summary of background informa-
tion see Table 1.
Data collection
Data collection and the 12-lesson intervention took place
over a 2-month period. The experimental class was vis-
ited approximately two times a week. See Table 2 for the
intervention schedule. In the experimental group, there
were a total of fourteen classroom visits, consisting of
two data collection periods and 12, 45 to 75-minute les-
sons. In the control group, there were two visits for data
collection. Classroom visit one (i.e., T
1
) was the same for
both conditions. This visit included a brief background
questionnaire and baseline data collection with the
CATCH scale. Classroom visits two to seven in the
experimental group included the delivery of the first unit
(i.e., six lessons) of the TI. Classroom visits eight to 13
for the experimental group included the latter six lessons
of the intervention (i.e., unit 2). Finally, classroom visit
14 for the experimental group and visit two for the con-
trol group were the post-intervention measures (i.e., T
2
)
of students’attitudes towards disability.
The Tripartite Intervention
The TI consists of two six-lesson units, for a total of 12 les-
sons. Within each unit, students are presented with two
cognitive, two behavioural and two affective-based lessons.
The TI was developed based upon effective intervention
strategies in this field of research, sound pedagogical
approaches and with a disability studies in education
framework. For details on the TI lessons, see Freer
(2021a). The first unit introduces students to the concepts
of disability and inclusion, although the second focuses on
parasports and empathy. Only a few researchers have used
sledge hockey in their intervention (Grenier et al., 2014;
ª2021 NASEN 19
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Xafopoulos et al., 2009). Grenier et al., (2014) used scoot-
ers to simulate sledge hockey, whereas Xafopoulos et al.,
(2009) provided their participants with a brief opportunity
to balance in a sled and shoot. Thanks to a generous
donation from the Canadian Tire Corporation and Cana-
dian Tire Jump Start Charities, as well as a partnership
with a sledge hockey team, these lessons included
extended opportunities to use official roller sledge hockey
equipment.
Figure 1: Study sample
Table 1: Sample demographics
Demographic variables Frequency Percentage
Female 19 (X-9; CBA-10) 50%
Male 19 (X-8; CBA-11) 50%
Age
8 years old 2 (X-0; CBA-2) 5%
9 years old 36 (X-17; CBA-19) 95%
Note: Percentages rounded to equal 100. X—Control Group; CBA—
Experimental Group.
ª2021 NASEN20
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Data analysis
Data were analysed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences (SPSS) 25. Descriptive statistics included
a measure of central tendency (i.e., mean) and dispersion
(i.e., range) for global and dimensional scores at pre-test
and post-test measures. In terms of inferential statistics, 2
92 mixed repeated measures ANOVAs and t-tests were
conducted. These tests are standard when employing an
experimental or quasi-experimental design (Evans, 2014)
and have been used in similarly designed studies (e.g.,
Lenz et al., 2012; Shen, and Armstrong, 2008).
Data sharing statement
Supporting data are not available for ethical reasons. The
intention to share the data set from this research project
with the journal was not articulated to the participants on
the assent forms nor to their parents on the consent
forms.
Results
Descriptive statistics
The rule presented by de Boer, Pijl and Minnaert (2012)
for 5-point Likert scale results is that scores 3.5 or higher
should be considered positive, 2.5 and lower should be
considered negative, and scores between 2.5 to 3.5 should
be considered neutral. Although the CATCH scale is a 5-
point Likert scale, the scoring instructions provided sug-
gested inputting scores between zero and four rather than
one to five. The suggested categories for negative, neutral
and positive were adjusted, while keeping the same math-
ematical proportions. For this study, the positive category
includes scores above 2.5, the neutral category includes
scores from 1.50 to 2.50, and negative category includes
scores lower than 1.50. For a summary of the descriptive
statistics, please see Table 3.
Inferential statistics
ANOVAs. 292 mixed repeated measures ANOVAs
were conducted. With regard to the global CATCH
scores, there was a statistically significant main effect for
time, F(1, 36) =15.095, p ≤0.001, partial g
2
=0.295,
observed power =0.966. Additionally, there was a non-
significant interaction (time x condition) effect, F(1, 36)
=0.701, p=0.408 ns, partial g
2
=0.019, observed
power =0.129. Both the experimental and control
groups’global CATCH scores increased significantly
from pre-test to post-test data collection periods. At face
value, it appears that the experimental group increased at
a greater rate than the control group, but not significantly
so. See Figure 2 for a profile plot of global CATCH
scores at T
1
and T
2
for both the control and experimental
groups.
Dimensional CATCH scores were also examined. The
affective dimension also had a statistically significant
main effect for time, F(1, 36) =7.511, p=0.009, partial
g
2
=0.173, observed power =0.760. Like the results for
the ANOVA on global CATCH scores, the ANOVA for
the affective dimensional CATCH scores returned a non-
significant interaction effect, F(1, 36) =0.166,
p=0.686 ns, partial g
2
=0.005, observed
power =0.068. See Figure 3 for a profile plot of the
affective CATCH scores in the control and experimental
groups at pre-test and post-test measures.
The behavioural dimension CATCH scores had a differ-
ent pattern than the previous two plots. The results of the
ANOVA for the behavioural dimension of the CATCH
indicated a non-statistically significant main effect for
time, F(1, 36) =1.032, p=0.316 ns, partial g
2
=0.028,
observed power =0.167. The results of this ANOVA also
indicated a non-statistically significant interaction effect
for time x condition, F(1, 36) =1.530, p=0.224 ns, par-
tial g
2
=0.041, observed power =0.226. See Figure 4
for the comparison of behavioural CATCH scores at
pre-test and post-test in the control and experimental
groups.
Finally, the cognitive dimensional CATCH scores were
examined. There were statistically significant findings for
the main effect of time, F(1, 36) =26.247, (p≤0.001),
partial g
2
=0.422, observed power =0.999. The
ANOVA for the cognitive dimension also found a signifi-
cant interaction effect (time x condition), F(1, 36) =
6.092, (p=0.018), partial g
2
=0.145, observed
power =0.671. That is, the students’CATCH scores on
the cognitive dimension increased significantly based on
time and condition. The experimental group saw statisti-
cally significant increases in their thoughts/beliefs about
disability from T
1
to T
2
, and significantly more so than
the control group. See Figure 5 for the profile plot of the
cognitive subscale of the CATCH at T
1
and T
2
for both
the experimental and control groups.
Table 2: Intervention schedule
Quasi-experimental condition Frequency of visits W1 W2 W3 W4 W5 W6 W7 W8
X2T
1
No visit No visits No visits No visits No visits T
2
No visits
CBA 14 T
1
L1- C
L2- C
L3- B
L4- B
L5- A
L6- A
L7- C
L8- C
L9- B
L10- B
L11- A L12- A
T
2
Note: X: control group; CBA: experimental group; C: focus on the cognitive dimension; B: focus on the behavioural dimension; A: focus on the affec-
tive dimension; L: Lesson; T: Time of measurement; W: Week.
ª2021 NASEN 21
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Determinant factors. Statistically significant differences
in students’CATCH scores based upon determinant
factors were also examined. To test determinant factors,
independent t-tests with the pre-test measures were
conducted, since at this point none of the students had
been introduced to the intervention.
The first determinant factor tested for was gender. There
were an equal number of boys and girls (i.e., 19 each). At T
1,
there were no statistically significant differences between
the global CATCH scores of boys (M=2.56,SD=0.57)
and girls (M=2.56,SD=0.34), t(29) =0.19, p=0.985,
ns. Unequal variances were found with Levene’s test, and
therefore, the degrees of freedom were adjusted from 36 to
29. Upon further investigation, there were no statistically
significant differences between the boys’and girls’CATCH
scores on any of the dimensions either. There were no signif-
icant differences between males (M=2.64,SD =0.59) and
females (M=2.58,SD=0.37) on their affective dimen-
sional CATCH scores, t(36) =0.413, p=0.682, ns.
Scores on the behavioural dimension of the CATCH scale
did not show statistically significant differences between
girls (M=2.78,SD=0.47) and boys (M=2.82,
SD =0.68) at T
1
,t(36) =0.209, p=0.836, ns. Finally,
Figure 2: Profile plot for global CATCH scores
Table 3: Means and ranges of global and dimensional CATCH Scores
Measurement
Whole sample Control group Experimental group
Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test
Global CATCH M=2.56
R=1.5–3.67
M=2.81
R=1.83–3.81
M=2.65
R=1.67–3.28
M=2.84
R=2.06–3.81
M=2.49*
R=1.5–3.67*
M=2.78
R=1.83–3.58
Affective Dimension M=2.61
R=1.67–3.92
M=2.82
R=1.83–3.76
M=2.65
R=1.67–3.42
M=2.83
R=1.83–3.75
M=2.61*
R=1.67–3.92*
M=2.81
R=2.00–3.75
Behavioural Dimension M=2.80
R=1.67–3.92
M=2.86
R=1.42–3.75
M=2.80
R=1.75–3.92
M=2.97
R=2.17–3.75
M=2.80
R=1.67–3.75
M=2.78
R=1.42–3.75
Cognitive Dimension M=2.29
R=1.17–3.58
M=2.75
R=1.42–3.92
M=2.51
R=1.5–3.58
M=2.74
R=2.17–3.92
M=2.10*
R=1.17–3.33*
M=2.76*
R=1.42–3.83*
Note: All descriptive statistics were rounded to the second decimal place. *—outlier present; M—Mean; R—Range; Scores range from 0.00 to 4.00
based on 5-point Likert scale.
ª2021 NASEN22
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Figure 3: Profile plot for affective dimension CATCH scores
Figure 4: Profile plot for behavioural dimension CATCH score
ª2021 NASEN 23
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
the cognitive dimension CATCH scores were also not sig-
nificantly different between males (M=2.23,SD=0.59)
and females (M=2.34,SD=0.61), t(36) =0.585,
p=0.562, ns.
The next determinant factor examined was whether there
were statistically significant differences in the T
1
CATCH
scores of students who had identified having a family
member with a disability compared to those students who
did not identify having a family member with a disability.
There were 13 students who reported having a family
member with a disability, 20 who did not have a family
member with a disability and 5 who selected the ‘prefer
not answer’option. The results of an independent t-test
suggest that students who have family members with dis-
abilities (M=2.82,SD=0.41) had significantly more
positive attitudes towards disability than those who indi-
cated they did not have family members with disabilities
(M=2.42,SD=0.48), t(31) =2.493, p=0.018.
The effect of having a family member with a disability
was also examined at the dimensional level. Affective
CATCH scores were significantly higher for students who
had a family member with a disability (M=2.87,
SD =0.49), compared to those who did not (M=2.46,
SD =0.45), t(31) =2.431, p=0.021. Behavioural
dimensional CATCH scores were also significantly higher
among students with family members with disabilities
(M=3.14,SD=0.47) compared to those who did not
report having family members with disabilities
(M=2.60,SD=0.57), t(31) =2.847, p=0.008. Finally,
the cognitive subscale CATCH scores were not signifi-
cantly different between students with family members
who had disabilities (M=2.46,SD=0.59) and those
who did not have family members with disabilities
(M=2.20,SD=0.64), t(31) =1.168, p=0.252, ns.
The final variable analysed as a determinant factor was
whether a student identified having a friend with a dis-
ability. Eight students identified having a friend with a
disability, whereas 24 students indicated that they did not
have a friend with a disability, and six students selected
the ‘prefer not to answer’option. The global CATCH
scores were not significantly different between students
with (M=2.80,SD=0.37) and without a friend who
has a disability (M=2.48,SD=0.50), t(30) =1.633,
p=0.113, ns.
Students did not show statistically significant different
affective CATCH subscale scores based on whether they
had a friend with a disability (M=2.72,SD=0.40) or
not (M=2.58,SD=0.53), t(30) =0.691 p=0.495, ns.
Similarly, there were no significant differences in the
behavioural dimension of the CATCH scale between stu-
dents who had a friend with a disability (M=2.95,
SD =0.42) and students who do not have a friend with a
Figure 5: Profile plot for cognitive dimension CATCH scores
ª2021 NASEN24
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
disability (M=2.72,SD=0.64), t(30) =0.948,
p=0.351, ns. Those students who identified having a
friend with a disability (M=2.72,SD=0.71), however,
had significantly more positive cognitive CATCH scores
compared to students who did not identify having a friend
with a disability (M=2.15,SD=0.56), t(30) =2.337,
p=0.026. There was not enough variance in the other
background information collected to measure these factors
as determinant of students’attitudes towards disability. In
the distribution, there were only two students who were
8 years old, whereas the other 36 students were 9 years
old, none of the students identified as having a disability,
and only one student reported not being good at sports.
Discussion
Attitude categories
The means of the global CATCH, as well as dimensional
subscales, mostly fell into the neutral and positive cate-
gories at T
1
. Researchers have suggested that students
tend to hold neutral or negative attitudes towards disabil-
ity (de Boer et al., 2014; Nowicki and Sandieson, 2002;
Vignes, et al., 2009). Negative attitudes towards disability
can contribute to a host of negative social outcomes. For
example, de Boer, Pijl and Minnaert (2012) wrote ‘nega-
tive attitudes may result in low acceptance by peers, few
friendships, loneliness and even being rejected and/or bul-
lied’(p. 380). It is less obvious what impact neutral atti-
tudes may have. It is not clear that there is anything
necessarily wrong with students holding neutral attitudes
towards disability. Although, there does not seem to be
any harm in increasing attitude scores towards the posi-
tive category, as was observed in this study.
The children who participated in this study came from a
single elementary school and grade level located in a
rural area in Southwestern Ontario. The descriptive statis-
tics discussed in this section may have been slightly
higher because of selection bias. Lewis-Beck et al.,
(2004) define selection bias as the ‘systematic tendency
to exclude one kind of unit or another from the sample’
(p. 987). In this study, sample selection bias may have
occurred when the school board selected this particular
school and/or when the principal selected the two classes
that would make up the potential sample. The school and
classes may have systematically differed from others that
were not selected.
Parents and students provided consent and assent respec-
tively. Students who did not obtain parental consent or
did not provide assent may have also differed in impor-
tant ways from those who chose to participate in the
study. Replication studies with larger and more diverse
samples could help to address the issue of sample selec-
tion bias. Randomisation would also address issues asso-
ciated with selection bias. Some selection bias is
unavoidable with this type of research because
participants ought to have the right to an informed con-
sent and the ability to withdraw from the study.
The effectiveness of the Tripartite Intervention
The results of the parametric tests can help to determine
the effectiveness of the newly developed TI. Finding a
non-significant interaction effect on the global CATCH
scores was a bit surprising given that most interventions
are effective in improving students’attitudes towards dis-
ability (Freer, 2021b; Lindsay and Edwards, 2013). In
addition, the duration of this intervention was substantial
compared to other successful interventions (e.g., Gaad,
2015). The lessons in the TI were also based upon suc-
cessful strategies used in previous intervention studies (e.
g., Krah
e and Altwasser, 2006; Macmillan et al., 2014;
Tindall, 2013). Additionally, this study adds intervention-
metric congruency (Freer, 2021a), which means the
dimensions of attitude measured match those being tar-
geted in the intervention. One of the reasons an interac-
tion effect was not observed was because both the control
and experimental groups’CATCH scores increased sig-
nificantly from T
1
to T
2
. Some possible explanations for
the significant increases in global CATCH scores in both
groups could be (1) mere exposure effect, (2) contamina-
tion bias or (3) type II error (i.e., a false negative).
Students may have had more positive attitudes towards
disability at T
2
because of the mere exposure effect. This
theory states that simply being exposed to an attitude
object may result in more favourable attitudes towards
the said object (Zajonc, 2001). Participants were in a
school where many students with disabilities were not
educated in the same class as the participants. This expo-
sure to the concept of disability within the 36 CATCH
statements at each data collection period may have pro-
vided sufficient exposure to the concept of disability to
see an increased effect.
Additionally, exposure to the CATCH scale may have
inadvertently prompted further reflection from the stu-
dents in the control group. For example, after the pre-test,
students may have gone home to talk to their parents
about some of the statements on the CATCH scale after
T
1
and prior to T
2
. This is particularly important given
the bi-directional effect that parents and children have on
each other’s attitudes towards disability (Armstrong et al.,
1987). Any additional engagement with the concept of
disability outside of the context of this study could have
impacted the control group as the status quo condition. If
students discussed disability with their parents or were
impacted by the scale itself, this could act as a confound-
ing variable and impact the validity of the experiment. In
applied quasi-experimental research, such as this, it is
very difficult to control for extraneous variables. Data are
being collected and the intervention is being implemented
in an authentic environment, as opposed to a contrived
context, such as a laboratory setting.
ª2021 NASEN 25
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Another explanation may be that there was contamination
bias in this quasi-experimental aspect of this study.
Keogh-Brown et al., (2007) explain:
Contamination ... occurs when people who were not
intended to receive an intervention inadvertently do
so. Trials of educational interventions are especially
prone to contamination because the active ingredients
can be transportable and difficult to confine. Contami-
nation tends to reduce the magnitude of effect esti-
mates and therefore also to increase the chance that
estimates will not be statistically significant. That is,
contamination causes bias and reduces power (p. ix).
Both the control and experimental group attended the
same school. The two classes who participated in this
study were the only two straight Grade 4 classes in the
school and were located right next door to each other. As
such, it seems plausible that the students in the experi-
mental class may have talked about the intervention with
their peers in the adjacent classroom. These additional
conversations about disability may explain why both
groups’CATCH scores increased significantly from T
1
to
T
2
. This explanation may also clarify why the experimen-
tal group increased at a greater rate than the control
group, having actually participated in the intervention les-
sons. Such an interpretation would mean that experienc-
ing the TI first hand or second hand could positively
impact students’attitudes towards disability, with the for-
mer having a larger effect on students’CATCH scores
than the latter. The contamination bias explanation would
preserve the utility of the TI as effective in enhancing
students’attitudes towards disability.
Finally, there is always the possibility of a false negative
or type II error given the small sample size. A type II
error occurs when one believes something is false, when
in fact it is true (Cohen et al., 2007). In this case, a belief
that there was not a significant interaction effect when in
fact there was. Overall, based on the data from this study,
one cannot confidently conclude that the TI effectively
improves students’attitudes towards disability. Findings
from this study showed students’attitudes generally
improved. For the vast majority of students, participating
in the intervention lessons did not appear to have adverse
effects on students’attitudes towards disability. These ini-
tial findings provide a rationale for a further investigation
into the effectiveness of this intervention.
2 x 2 mixed repeated measures ANOVAs were also run
with the dimensional CATCH scores. The data from the
affective dimension follow a similar pattern to that of the
global CATCH scores. Therefore, similar interpretations
to those presented above can be applied. This finding was
especially surprising because the TI addressed a gap in
the literature by explicitly targeting the affective dimen-
sion of attitude, which has been largely neglected in pre-
vious intervention studies. More intervention studies that
explicitly target the affective dimension of attitude can
help to refine best practices going forward.
The behavioural and cognitive dimensions plotted very
differently and are worth their own brief discussion here.
The experimental group’s behavioural subscale scores
stayed about the same with a slight non-significant
decrease, whereas a non-significant increase was observed
in the control group. The reason the behavioural dimen-
sion did not see significant changes in their subscale
scores could be because these scores were higher to begin
with (i.e., a ceiling effect). Changing how students think
and feel about disability is limited if it does not change
how students would act towards people with disabilities
and could also challenge the tripartite understanding of
attitude that sits at the foundation of this study.
The findings from a 2 x 2 mixed repeated measures
ANOVA for the cognitive subscale did return a signifi-
cant interaction effect. These findings provide some initial
evidence that the TI effectively changed how students
thought about disability. The intervention appears to
impact thoughts/beliefs best, then feelings and lastly
behavioural intentions. These results could have been
observed either because lower scores are more susceptible
to change than higher scores or because actions are more
difficult to influence than thoughts and feelings. The fact
that the intervention seems to positively impact the cogni-
tive dimension of attitude is a good start for children and
showcases some utility in implementing the lessons from
the TI.
Finally, determinant factors were tested with independent
t-tests. There were not significant differences between
males’and females’global or dimensional CATCH
scores. This finding is unusual because typically females
have more positive attitudes towards disability compared
to males (e.g., de Boer, Pijl, Post, et al., 2012; de Laat
et al., 2013; Sheridan and Scior, 2013, etc.). In fact, a
recent systematic literature review found that being
female was the single most consistent predictor of more
positive attitudes towards disability among school-aged
children (Freer, 2021b). In that same review (Freer,
2021b), however, there were a small number of studies
that also did not find significant differences between
males and females (Georgiadi et al., 2012; Magnusson
et al., 2017; McKay et al., 2018).
Having a family member with a disability was associated
with significantly more positive global, affective and
behavioural CATCH scores, but not cognitive subscale
scores. This finding was consistent with results from pre-
vious studies (Al-Kandari, 2015; Moore and Nettelbeck,
2013; Thomson and Lillie, 1995). In addition, this finding
supported the idea that contact was associated with more
positive attitudes towards disability, which is another
well-established determinant of students’attitudes towards
disability (e.g., Freer, 2021b; Macmillan et al., 2014).
ª2021 NASEN26
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
Beyond contact, having a family member with a disability
may help to protect against in-group bias because in these
cases the students’in-group includes disability experi-
ences.
Friendship with someone who has a disability was associ-
ated with more positive cognitive subscale scores, but not
global, affective or behavioural CATCH scores. Other
researchers have found that friendship with someone who
has a disability was associated with more positive atti-
tudes towards disability (Al-Kandari, 2015; Hurst et al.,
2012; de Laat et al., 2013; Rosenbaum et al., 1988). Only
about 21% of the students in the sample or 8 of the 38
participants reported having a friend with a disability.
This finding suggests that a lack of friendship opportuni-
ties continues to be a barrier to social inclusion for stu-
dents with disabilities (de Boer, Pijl, Post, et al., 2012; de
Boer et al., 2013). The school where this study was con-
ducted had self-contained special education classes, and
therefore, the students who participated in this study may
have had few opportunities to experience meaningful
social interactions with their peers with disabilities.
Limitations
The current study represents an important first step for
the newly developed TI. Limitations are presented below
to help frame the potential impact of this study realisti-
cally and avoid overgeneralisations of the findings. First,
quasi-experimental designs lack randomisation, which is
an important element of a true experiment. Randomisation
helps to reduce bias in the data, but when working in
schools it is often impractical to randomise students into
new groupings outside of their classes. Another rather
important limitation to acknowledge was the small sample
size. Small sample sizes are associated with low statistical
power, which can lead to misleading results.
In addition to the number of participants, the selection
process poses a limitation that must be acknowledged.
When conducting research with community partners,
sometimes these partners view the research project
through a practical lens, which can compromise the
objectivity of the study. A school board representative
selected a school based on a high probability that the
principal, teachers and parents would support this study.
Although this approach was helpful in achieving a strong
participation rate, it also may have introduced sample
selection bias. The implication of this limitation is that
the data are likely not representative of the population of
interest and thus should not necessarily be generalised
beyond the classes at this particular school.
Finally, there was one assumption that was not met for
conducting parametric tests. The assumptions for normal-
ity, homogeneity of variance, sphericity and equality of
covariance matrices were all met prior to data analyses.
Another assumption is that there are no outliers in the
distribution of data, but there were outliers present. These
outliers could impact the findings of the parametric tests,
but removing the outliers was not advisable because of
the small sample size. Overall, the findings from this
study should be interpreted with caution until replication
studies with larger and more diverse samples can be con-
ducted.
Recommendations
This research study addressed a substantial gap in the
intervention literature by explicitly targeting all three
dimensions of attitude. The findings of this study show
promise for the TI as a viable tool to address ableism in
schools. The findings, however, represent only a starting
point, as there is still much work to be done. The TI
needs to be studied under more rigorous conditions to
better determine its effectiveness. This intervention should
be tested with larger and more diverse samples. Replica-
tion studies could help to enhance the reliability of the
findings, but factors effecting implementation will need to
be taken into consideration (Durlak and DuPre, 2008).
Another way to enhance the scientific rigour of studying
the TI would be to design an experimental study with
randomisation. Randomisation would help to remove ele-
ments of sample selection bias present in the current
study. In addition, there is a need for longitudinal data to
better understand whether any changes as a result of par-
ticipating in the TI would stand the test of time. The util-
ity of the TI would be limited if changes do not have
longevity.
The TI was compared to the absence of any competing
intervention. Future research studies should consider com-
paring the TI to other intervention efforts to see which
strategies are most effective. Comparison studies exist but
are few and far between. One example comes from Krah
e
and Altwasser (2006), who compared two intervention
approaches in their study, one that explicitly targeted two
dimensions of attitude and another that targeted one
dimension. A similar study could be conducted compar-
ing the TI to interventions that target two dimensions
and/or one dimension of attitude.
Further investigation into the effects of both six-lesson
units may also be helpful if educators and/or researchers
have a limited amount of time to administer an interven-
tion. It could be interesting to know whether the units are
effective on their own or are best delivered together. For
example, one could conduct a study comparing the two
units or design an experiment with an additional data col-
lection period after unit one, but before unit two. The
prior would be helpful for comparison, and the latter
could investigate additive effects. A possible limitation of
this approach is that additional exposure to the CATCH
scale may increase social desirability and exposure
effects, which may have impacted the results of the cur-
rent study.
ª2021 NASEN 27
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
A hope is that researchers in the field will appreciate the
importance of explicitly targeting the dimensions of atti-
tude when developing and measuring the effectiveness of
interventions aimed at enhancing students’attitudes
towards disability. Being more explicit about what dimen-
sions are being targeted in the intervention lessons may
help the field to narrow down best practices.
Quantitative research designs continue to dominate this
field of inquiry (Freer, 2021b). Researchers can further
examine students’experiences with purely qualitative
studies (e.g., a narrative inquiry) or with mixed method
(i.e., studies including the analysis of both qualitative and
quantitative data). For example, interviews and/or focus
groups with students may help researchers to understand
children’s experiences participating in the intervention
lessons and provide more detail on students’attitudes
beyond quantitative scores. Additionally, researchers
should utilise behavioural observations as a way of exam-
ining students’interactions with their peers who have dis-
abilities. In the current study, students’behavioural scores
were positive at T
1
. An observational component could
have helped to determine whether this measure is a valid
predictor of students’social behaviour with their peers
who have disabilities.
Afinal recommendation for teachers and researchers in
this field would be to work alongside individuals with
disabilities as allies to the intervention effort. In the first
unit, the participants had an opportunity to interact with
their peers from a self-contained special education class
within their school. In the second unit, the partnerships
developed with a local sledge hockey team and Canadian
Tire were instrumental in supporting the equipment and
training needs of this project, but also provided the added
benefit of community involvement to the research project.
Conclusion
This study investigated the effects of a newly developed
12-lesson intervention on students’attitudes towards dis-
ability. Utilising a quasi-experimental design, students’
attitudes towards disability were measured before and
after the intervention period with a control and experi-
mental group of Grade 4 students from a large rural
school in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. This study also
examined factors related to students’attitudes towards
disability.
The results, while modest, indicated that the TI improved
students’thoughts/beliefs about disability. In other words,
the TI effectively enhanced the cognitive dimension of
attitude. Additionally, having a family member with a
disability was associated with more positive CATCH
scores. Based on the findings of this initial study, stu-
dents’attitudes did not appear to be enhanced as a result
of the TI. Although e students’overall attitudes increased
significantly from pre-test to post-test data collection peri-
ods, no interaction effect was found on the global,
affective or behavioural dimensions. This study was the
first to utilise the new TI, and further investigation is nec-
essary.
The TI addresses an important gap in the literature by
contributing an intervention that explicitly targets all three
dimensions of attitude. Further investigation is needed to
determine whether this approach successfully enhances
students’attitudes towards disability. Overall, the findings
provide a strong rationale for replication studies. This
intervention has the potential to combat ableism in
schools and promote social inclusion.
Children with disabilities continue to face attitudinal bar-
riers to inclusive education. Students’attitudes towards
disability play an immensely important role in whether
students with exceptionalities feel included in their classes
and schools. Educators and researchers need to seriously
consider how attitudes towards disability might be
impacting social inclusion and furthermore how to
address this problem. The intervention literature on stu-
dents’attitudes towards disability seems to offer a possi-
ble starting place. The TI presents a new option to
capitalise on intervention efforts aimed at enhancing stu-
dents’attitudes towards disability, while taking into con-
sideration students’thoughts, feelings and behaviours.
Address for correspondence
John R. R. Freer,
School of Community Studies, St. Clair College,
Faculty of Education, University of Windsor,
Email: jfreer@uwindsor.ca or jfreer@stclaircollege.ca
References
Al‐Kandari, H. (2015) High school students’contact
with and attitudes towards persons with intellectual
and developmental disabilities in Kuwait. Australian
Social Work, 68 (1), pp. 65–83. 10.1080/0312407X.
2014.946429
Armstrong, M., Morris, C., Tarrant, M., Abraham, C. &
Horton, M. C. (2017) ‘Rasch analysis of the Chedoke-
McMaster attitudes towards children with handicaps
scale.’Disability and Rehabilitation, 39 (3), pp. 281–90.
Armstrong, R. W., Rosenbaum, P. L. & King, S. M.
(1987) ‘A randomized controlled trial of a ’buddy’
programme to improve children’s attitudes toward the
disabled.’Developmental Medicine and Child
Neurology, 29 (3), pp. 327–36.
Blackman, S. (2016) ‘Barbadian students’attitudes
towards including peers with disabilities in regular
education.’International Journal of Special
Education, 31 (1), pp. 135–43.
Bossaert, G. & Petry, K. (2013) ‘Factorial validity of the
Chedoke-McMaster attitudes towards children with
ª2021 NASEN28
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
handicaps scale (CATCH).’Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 34 (4), pp. 1336–45.
Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research
Methods in Education (6th edn). New York City, NY:
Routledge.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J. & Minnaert, A. (2012) ‘Students’
attitudes towards peers with disabilities: A review of
the literature.’International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 59 (4), pp. 379–92.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Minnaert, A. & Post, W. (2014)
‘Evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention
program to influence attitudes of students towards
peers with disabilities.’Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 44 (3), pp. 572–83.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W. & Minnaert, A. (2012)
‘Which variables relate to the attitudes of teachers,
parents and peers towards students with special
educational needs in regular education?’Educational
Studies, 38 (4), pp. 433–48.
de Boer, A., Pijl, S. J., Post, W. & Minnaert, A. (2013)
‘Peer acceptance and friendships of students with
disabilities in general education: The role of child,
peer, and classroom variables.’Social Development,
22, pp. 831–44.
de Laat, S., Freriksen, E. & Vervloed, M. P. (2013)
‘Attitudes of children and adolescents toward persons
who are deaf, blind, paralyzed or intellectually
disabled.’Research in Developmental Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 34 (2), pp. 855–63.
Durlak, J. A. & DuPre, E. P. (2008) ‘Implementation
matters: A review of research on the influence of
implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation.’American Journal of
Community Psychology, 41 (3), pp. 327–50.
Evans, A. N. (2014) Using Basic Statistics in the
Behavioral and Social Sciences (5th edn). Thousand
Oaks, California: Sage.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G. & Buchner, A.
(2007) ‘G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and
biomedical sciences.’Behavior Research Methods, 39,
pp. 175–91.
Freer, J. R. (2021a) ‘The Tripartite Intervention: Breaking
Down Attitudinal Barriers in Education.’Journal of
Disability Studies in Education, https://doi.org/10.
1163/25888803-bja10006.
Freer, J. R. (2021b) ‘Students’attitudes toward disability:
a systematic literature review.’International Journal
of Inclusive Education, https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603116.2020.1866688.
Gaad, E. (2015) ‘Look who’s coming to school: The
Emirati student voice in an intervention-based study
on inclusion of learners with intellectual disabilities in
Emirati mainstream government schools.’Journal of
Research in Special Educational Needs, 15 (2), pp.
130–8.
Godeau, E., Vignes, C., Sentenac, M., Ehlinger, V.,
Navarro, F., Grandjean, H. & Arnaud, C. (2010)
‘Improving attitudes towards children with disabilities
in a school context: A cluster randomized intervention
study.’Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology,
52 (10), pp. e236–e242. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.
03731
Georgiadi, M., Kalyva, E., Kourkoutas, E. & Tsakiris, V.
(2012) ‘Young children’s attitudes toward peers with
intellectual disabilities: Effect of the type of school.’
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual
Disabilities, 25 (6), pp. 531–41.
Giagazoglou, P. & Papadaniil, M. (2018) ‘Effects of a
storytelling program with drama techniques to
understand and accept intellectual disability in
students 6–7 years old. A pilot study.’Advances in
Physical Education, 8 (2), pp. 224–37.
Grenier, M., Collins, K., Wright, S. & Kearns, C. (2014)
‘Perceptions of a disability sport unit in general
physical education.’Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 31 (1), pp. 49–66.
Hern
an, M. A. & Robins, J. M. (2017) ‘Pre-protocol
analyses of pragmatic trials.’New England Journal of
Medicine, 377 (14), pp. 1391–8.
Holtz, K. D. & Tessman, G. K. (2007) ‘Evaluation of a
peer-focused intervention to increase knowledge and
positive attitudes toward children with Tourette
syndrome.’Journal of Developmental and Physical
Disabilities, 19 (6), pp. 531–42.
Hurst, C., Corning, K. & Ferrante, R. (2012) ‘Children’s
acceptance of others with disability: The influence of
a disability-simulation program.’Journal of Genetic
Counseling, 21 (6), pp. 873–83.
Jones, S. R., Carley, S. & Harrison, M. (2003) ‘An
introduction to power and sample size estimation.’
Emergency Medicine Journal, 20 (5), pp. 453–8.
Keogh-Brown, M. R., Bachman, M. O., Shepstone, L.,
Hewitt, C., Howe, A., Ramsay, C. R., Campbell, M.
J. (2007) ‘Contamination in trials of educational
interventions.’Health Technology Assessment,11
(43), pp. iii–128.
Krah
e, B. & Altwasser, C. (2006) ‘Changing negative
attitudes towards persons with physical disabilities:
An experimental intervention.’Journal of Community
& Applied Social Psychology, 16 (1), pp. 59–69.
Lenz, S. A., Sangganjanavanich, V. F., Balkin, R. S.,
Oliver, M. & Smith, R. L. (2012) ‘Wellness model of
supervision: A comparative analysis.’Counselor
Education and Supervision, 51 (3), pp. 207–21.
https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2012.00015.x.
Lewis-Beck, M. S., A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (eds) (2004)
The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research
Methods (Vol. 3). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Lindsay, S. & Edwards, A. (2013) ‘A systematic review
of disability awareness interventions for children and
youth.’Disability and Rehabilitation, 35 (8), pp. 623–
46. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.702850.
Lloyd, A., Smith, M., Dempsey, I., Fischetti, J. & Amos,
K. (2017) ‘Short- and medium-term of Just Like You
disability awareness program: A quasi-experimental
ª2021 NASEN 29
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
comparison of alternative forms of program delivery
in New South Wales’primary schools.’Australian
Journal of Education, 61 (3), pp. 288–304. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0004944117730649.
Loovis, E. M. & Loovis, C. (1997) ‘A disability
awareness unit in physical education and attitudes of
elementary school students.’Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 84 (3), pp. 768–70. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.
1997.84.3.768.
Macmillan, M., Tarrant, M., Abraham, C. & Morris, C.
(2014) ‘The association between children’s contact
with people with disabilities and their attitudes
towards disability: A systematic review.’
Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 56 (6),
pp. 529–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12326.
Magnusson, D. M., Cal, F. & Boissonnault, J. S. (2017)
‘Influence of a short-term disability awareness
program on knowledge and attitudes of school-aged
children in southern Belize: Results of a community-
university partnership.’Physical Therapy, 97 (4), pp.
408–16. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20160139.
McKay, C., Park, J. Y. & Block, M. (2018) ‘Exploring
the variables associated with student attitudes toward
inclusion in physical education after taking part in the
Paralympic School Day programme.’International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 25, pp. 329–347.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1550117.
Moore, D. & Nettelbeck, T. (2013) ‘Effects of short-term
disability awareness training on attitudes of adolescent
schoolboys toward persons with a disability.’Journal
of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 38 (3), pp.
223–31. https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2013.
790532.
Novak, A. D. & Bartelheim, F. J. (2012) ‘General
education students’changing perceptions of students
with special needs.’Current Issues in Education,15
(2), pp. 1–10 Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/
index.php/cieatasu/article/view/963.
Nowicki, E. A. & Sandieson, R. (2002) ‘A meta‐analysis
of school‐age children’s attitudes towards persons
with physical or intellectual disabilities.’International
Journal of Disability, Development and Education,49
(3), pp. 243–65. 10.1080/1034912022000007270
Petry, K. (2018) ‘The relationship between class attitudes
towards peers with a disability and peer acceptance,
friendship and peer interactions of students with a
disability in regular secondary schools.’European
Journal of Special Needs Education, 33 (2), pp. 254–
68. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2018.1424782.
Rillotta, F. & Nettelbeck, T. (2007) ‘Effects of an
awareness program on attitudes of students without an
intellectual disability towards persons with an
intellectual disability.’Journal of Intellectual &
Developmental Disability, 32 (1), pp. 19–27. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/13668250701194042.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W. & King, S. M.
(1986) ‘Children’s attitudes toward disabled peers: A
self-report measure.’Journal of Pediatric Psychology,
11 (4), pp. 517–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/11.
4.517.
Rosenbaum, P. L., Armstrong, R. W. & King, S. M.
(1988) ‘Determinants of children’s attitudes toward
disability: A review of evidence.’Children’s Health
Care, 17, pp. 32–9. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15326888chc1701_5.
Shen, Y. & Armstrong, S. A. (2008) ‘Impact of group
sandtray therapy on the self-esteem of young
adolescent girls.’Journal for Specialists in Group
Work, 33 (2), pp. 118–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01933920801977397.
Sheridan, J. & Scior, K. (2013) ‘Attitudes towards people
with intellectual disabilities: A comparison of young
people from British south Asian and white British
backgrounds.’Research in Developmental
Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 34 (4), pp.
1240–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.017.
Specht, J. & Bennett, S. (2013). Some thoughts on
achieving inclusive schooling. Educational Watch: An
Update on Inclusive Education, 4(3), 3. Retrieved
from www.inclusiveeducationresearch.ca/docs/
Education_Watch_Spring_2013.pdf
Thomson, D. J. & Lillie, L. (1995) ‘The effects of
integration on the attitudes of non- disabled pupils to
their disabled peers.’Physiotherapy, 81 (12), pp. 746–
52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)66592-3.
Tindall, D. (2013) ‘Creating disability awareness through
sport: Exploring the participation, attitudes and
perceptions of post-primary female students in
Ireland.’Irish Educational Studies, 32 (4), pp. 457–
75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2013.859339.
Vignes, C., Coley, N., Grandjean, H., Godeau, E. &
Arnaud, C. (2008) ‘Measuring children’s attitudes
towards peers with disabilities: A review of
instruments.’Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 50 (3), pp. 182–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-8749.2008.02032.x.
Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M., Coley, N.,
Navarro, F., Grandjean, H. & Arnaud, C. (2009)
‘Determinants of students’attitudes towards peers
with disabilities.’Developmental Medicine & Child
Neurology, 51 (6), pp. 473–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1469-8749.2009.03283.x.
Xafopoulos, G., Kudl
a
cek, M. & Evaggelinou, C. (2009)
‘Effect of the intervention program “Paralympic
School Day”on attitudes of children attending
international school towards inclusion of students with
disabilities.’Acta Universitatis Palackianae
Olomcensis Gymnica, 39 (4), pp. 63–71 Retrieved
from https://www.gymnica.upol.cz/pdfs/gym/2009/04/
07.pdf.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001) ‘Mere exposure: A gateway to the
subliminal.’Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 10 (6), pp. 224–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/
1467-8721.00154.
ª2021 NASEN30
Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 22 18–30
