workplace is of critical importance in the United States. Among the 53
million adults with a disability in 1997, approximately 33 million bad a
significant disability and 10 million needed assistance in their daily
lives (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). One in five working-age adults has a
disability. Numerous public laws have defined and guided the roles of
both federal and state rehabilitation service agencies to assist persons
with disabilities to become placed into gainful competitive employment.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) defines an individual
with a disability as an individual who has a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
has a record of such an impairment; or is regarded as having such an
impairment (ADA, section 3: Definitions, 1990). Other public laws
providing guidance include the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; the ADA; the
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992; the Rehabilitation Act Amendments
of 1998; and the Workforce Investment Partnership Act of 1998, which
emphasizes the priority of state vocational rehabilitation services to
place consumers with disabilities into competitive employment. However,
the unemployment of persons with disabilities, between 18 and 64 years
of age, is estimated at 68% (National Organization on Disability, 2001).
No aspect of the rehabilitation practice demands more careful study
by public rehabilitation placement professionals than the placement of
consumers with disabilities into jobs. Studies on the provision of job
placement services to consumers with disabilities suggest the public
rehabilitation placement professionals' attitudes toward persons
with disabilities impact job placement outcomes. Rehabilitation
placement professionals' attitudes toward consumers with
disabilities have also been found to be significantly correlated with
the consumer's self-concept and the rehabilitation placement
professional's utilization of the consumer's skills and
abilities for job placement outcomes (All, Fried, Ritcher, Shaw, &
Roberto, 1997; Beck, Carlton, Alien, Rosenkoetter, & Hardy, 1993;
Bowman, 1987; Caufield, Carey, & Mason, 1994; Cook, 1987; Kerr,
1970; Mullins, Roessler, Schriner, Brown, & Bellini, 1997;
Schlossberg & Pietrofesa, 1973; Watson-Armstrong, O'Rourke,
& Schatzlein, 1994).
Obtaining successful rehabilitation service outcomes could be
enhanced through understanding the public rehabilitation placement
professionals' beliefs toward placing consumers with disabilities
into jobs. The needs of consumers demand that rehabilitation placement
professionals provide services in an expert and proficient manner,
resulting in the successful placement of the consumer into a job
(Fabian, Luecking, & Tilson, 1995; Gilbride & Stensrud 1993;
Millington, Asner, Linkowski, & Der-Steppeanian, 1996).
Theory of Planned Behavior
In this study, the empirical cognitive behavioral theory of planned
behavior (TPB) was used to guide data collection of rehabilitation
placement professionals' beliefs toward placing a consumer with a
disability into a job. The TPB, based on decades of research, posits
that a person's behavior is a function of his or her intentions to
perform a particular action (Ajzen, 2001; Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1972; Ajzen & Madden, 1986).
The cognitive determinants of intentions include perceived outcomes of
performing the behavior, social pressure to perform behavior, and
perceived behavioral control. The TPB suggests that individuals'
intentions to perform a behavior are guided by particular beliefs which
lead to outcomes they value if (a) they believe the views toward the
behavior held by important others, whom they value, support them to
perform the behavior and (b) they feel the necessary resources to
perform the behavior are available to them (Connor & Sparks, 1999).
The TPB suggests that intention is predicted by three cognitive
determinants: (a) attitude, (b) subjective norm, and (c) perceived
behavioral control. Each determinant consists of a belief, or a set of
beliefs, and an evaluation of each belief. Attitude is defined as the
individual's perceived consequences of the behavior. Attitude is
influenced by an individual's perceptions of the likelihood of
identified outcomes from performing the behavior (behavioral beliefs)
and an evaluation of the outcome as an advantage or disadvantage of
performing the behavior. Subjective norm is defined as the
individual's subjective belief about what those people important to
him or her think about performing the behavior addressed. Subjective
norm is influenced by the subjective probability that other important
individuals think he or she should or should not perform the behavior
(normative beliefs) and the measure of his or her motivation to comply
with these individuals. In forming the subjective norm component,
individuals take into account the normative expectations of various
others in their environment. Perceived behavioral control is defined as
the individual's perception of how difficult a behavior is to
perform and is consistent with the concept of self-efficacy (Bandura,
1986). Perceived behavioral control consists of beliefs identifying the
likelihood of resources for, and impediments to, performing the behavior
addressed (control beliefs) and the perceived effect of each resource or
impediment as being easy or difficult. Control beliefs are influenced by
past experience in performing the behavior and experiences of
acquaintances and friends, suggesting exploration and validation of
these beliefs (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Conner & Sparks, 1999;
Kohler, Grimley, & Reynolds, 1999).
According to the TPB, behavioral change is ultimately the result of
changes in the salient beliefs of the persons performing the behavior.
Modifying identified salient beliefs through interventions would create
a change in attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control,
and therefore strengthen one's behavioral intentions to place
consumers with disabilities into jobs (Ajzen, 2001; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980). The TPB (see Figure 1) has become one of the most
widely utilized social cognitive behavioral theories to assess behavior
(Conner & Sparks, 1999). It has been used to successfully predict
intention and suggest interventions to enhance behavior in an array of
studies such as female employment choice (Kolverid, 1996), student
selection of an undergraduate major (Cohen & Hanno, 1993),
cooperative learning usage (Lumpe & Haney, 1998), computer-based
health appraisal system usage (Rhodes & Fishbein, 1997),
undergraduate student class attendance (Ajzen & Madden, 1986), HIV and sexually transmitted disease prevention among adolescents in the UK
(Jemmott, Jemmott, & Cruz-Collins, 1992), research dissemination among addictions counselors (Breslin, Li, Tupker, & Sdao-Jarvie,
2001), technology training adaptation in the workplace (Morris &
Venkatesh, 2000), and distance education course enrollment (Becker &
Gibson, 1998).
Purpose of Study
The objective of this study was to apply an empirical cognitive
behavioral theory, specifically the theory of planned behavior (TPB), to
identify salient behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and control
beliefs and explore factors that may affect temporary work agencies near me the intention of public
rehabilitation placement professionals to place consumers with
disabilities into jobs. Data were collected from a convenience sample of
public rehabilitation placement professionals in five states of the
southern United States. This analysis is especially important because,
the application of theory for the elicitation of public rehabilitation
placement professionals' salient beliefs toward placing consumers
with disabilities into jobs has potential for significantly changing not
only practice, but training and education related to these practices.
Method
The study design utilized a quasi-experimental design (Vogt, 1999).
A deductive research approach was applied in this study. Such an
approach utilizes theory, provides the researcher with a direct and
narrow focus, analysis by construct, and higher validity of results
(Burisch, 1984).
Instrument Development
When applying the TPB, it was necessary to define the behavior
addressed in relation to the four elements of action, target, context,
and time (Elder, Ayala, & Harris, 1999; Sutton, McVey, & Glanz,
1999). Using guidelines as outlined by the TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980; Ajzen & Madden, 1986), the targeted action was defined as
placing a consumer into a job; the target population was persons with
disabilities served by public rehabilitation services; the context was
within the job duties and functions of a public rehabilitation placement
professional; and the time was the period between becoming part of the
rehabilitation placement professional's active caseload and being
placed into a job.
In the guidelines of the TPB, the Rehabilitation Placement Survey
(RPS) was developed by the authors to elicit the salient beliefs of
public rehabilitation placement professionals toward placing consumers
with disabilities into jobs. The RPS was an anonymous three-item,
free-response, and open-ended paper-pencil questionnaire. Three
questions were created to elicit the public rehabilitation placement
professionals' salient behavioral beliefs, normative beliefs, and
control beliefs, respectively: (1) Please list any advantages and or
disadvantages to placing a consumer with a disability into a job; (2)
When you consider placing a consumer with a disability into a job, there
may be individuals or groups who think you should or should not perform
this behavior. If any such individuals or groups come to mind, please
list them; and (3) Are there any resources for, or impediments to,
placing a consumer with a disability into a job? If so, please list
these. Participants were asked to report demographic information
including position, experience, education level, ethnicity, age, and
gender. The RPS would be administered to a convenience sample of public
rehabilitation placement professionals. In a convenience sample, clearly
presented demographic data allows a more precise judgment regarding the
external validity of the study findings (Payton, 1994).
The content of the RPS was validated by three expert review panels:
four faculty members having experience placing consumers with
disabilities into jobs, from the Rehabilitation Counseling Program,
Department of Rehabilitation and Special Education, Auburn University,
Auburn, Alabama; three faculty members, who had expertise in application
of the TPB, from the Department of Health Behavior, School of Public
Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama; and
eight experienced rehabilitation placement professionals employed in a
state rehabilitation services agency. Based on the recommendations of
the panel reviews, a consensus was found and subsequent minor changes
were made to the RPS. The RPS was approved by the Institutional Review
Board of Auburn University.
Participants
The RPS was provided to a convenience sample of 155 public
rehabilitation placement professionals in the states of Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee. A sample
participant was selected on two criteria. First, potential study
participants were involved with one of either two distance education
programs in rehabilitation counseling or rehabilitation job placement
programs offered through the Comprehensive System for Professional
Development of Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, USA. Both programs
served rehabilitation professionals directly involved in job placement.
Second, participants met the criteria of being employed in a state
agency and held the position of: (a) a rehabilitation counselor, as
defined by his or her state agency or (b) a rehabilitation placement
specialist, which included all other state agency positions involved
directly in job placement (e.g., employment specialist, job development
specialist, community employment specialist). Participation in the study
was voluntary and independent of any course requirements.
Analyses
The analyses were conducted in accordance with the standard
guidelines of the TPB (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Ajzen & Madden,
1986). The first step was analogous to a content analysis of the various
elicited salient beliefs. This involved organizing the salient beliefs
by cognitive determinants and then grouping similar beliefs together.
Beliefs then were grouped by analytic category. For example, supervisor
and family would be analytic categories for normative belief. The exact
words of the written belief were used in this procedure. In using the
exact words presented by the participants, reader interpretation was
reduced (Sims & Wright, 2000). For each cognitive determinant
component (e.g., behavioral, normative, control), the frequency of each
analytic category was determined. Between three and ten analytic
categories, representing the majority of beliefs, became the modal belief statements (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980).
To address the issue of reliability, the authors measured
interrater reliability (Sims & Wright, 2000; Vogt, 1999). The first
and second authors independently analyzed the elicited salient beliefs
of the participant beliefs. They compared broad categories and
interpreted individual beliefs according to standard procedures (Rhodes
& Hergenrather, 2002). Each elicited salient belief response, for
both the behavioral beliefs and normative beliefs, addressed a single
topic. However, among the elicited salient control beliefs, the category
of public assistance consisted of single statements addressing public
financial and public medical benefits. The authors agreed to report this
as one category, reflecting the respondent's beliefs. The
inter-rater reliability was reported at 100%.
Results
Participants
Of 158 public rehabilitation placement professionals recruited, 155
completed the RPS, indicating a 98.1% response rate. All surveys were
complete, containing at least one response per question. Demographics are presented in Table 1.
Behavioral Beliefs
The first question of the RPS asked the public rehabilitation
placement professionals to list any advantages and or disadvantages to
placing a consumer with a disability into a job. This question
represented the behavioral belief component of the TPB. Of the 806
elicited salient behavioral beliefs, 788 (97.8%) were identified as
outcomes affecting the consumer with a disability and 18 (2.2%) were
identified as outcomes affecting the public rehabilitation placement
professional (e.g., increasing case closure rates, meeting job
performance standards). A mean of five salient behavioral beliefs was
elicited from each participant. Ten analytic categories emerged,
representing 72.0% of the elicited salient behavioral beliefs (See Table
2). The ten categories represent the modal behavioral beliefs (MBB) as
defined by the TPB.
Normative Beliefs
The second question of the RPS asked the public rehabilitation
placement professionals to list any individuals or groups who think they
should or should not place a consumer with a disability into a job. This
question represented the normative belief component of the TPB. A mean
of two normative beliefs was elicited from each participant. Three
analytic categories were determined, representing 82.6% of the 389
elicited salient normative beliefs (See Table 3). These categories
represent the modal normative beliefs (MNB) as defined by the TPB.
Control Beliefs
The final question of the RPS asked the public rehabilitation
placement professionals to list resources for, or impediments to,
placing consumers with disabilities into jobs. This question represented
the control belief component of the TPB. A mean of five control beliefs
was elicited from each participant. Ten analytic categories were
determined, representing 70.8% of the 894 elicited salient control
beliefs (See Table 4). These categories represent the modal control
beliefs (MCB) as defined by the TPB.
Discussion and Implications
The authors applied the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to elicit
salient beliefs for identifying and exploring factors that may impact
job placement behavior. In this study, 21 factors were identified.
Although prior research has identified some factors associated with job
placement, most findings were not elicited from the persons providing
job placement services and no studies were theoretically-based (Brooks
& Klosinski, 1999; Freedman, & Fesko, 1996; Gilbride, Stensrud,
Ehlers, Evans, & Peterson, 2000; Rumril, Millington, Webb, &
Cook, 1998; Schmidt-Davis, Hayward, & Kay, 2000; Schriner,
Greenwood, & Johnson, 1989; Shahnasarian, 2001; Tsang, Lam, Ng,
& Leung, 2000; Walls, Dowler, Cordingly, Orslene, & Greer,
2001).
Several findings from this study deserve highlighting and further
exploration. First, the elicited salient behavioral beliefs concentrated
on outcomes affecting consumers with disabilities rather than on
outcomes affecting the job performance of public rehabilitation
placement professionals. This suggests that public rehabilitation
placement professionals are altruistic, being more concerned with
increasing the welfare of the consumer, rather than increasing their own
welfare. Public rehabilitation placement professionals perceive the
consumer's needs and value the consumer's welfare as an
ultimate goal (Batson, Turk, Shaw, & Klein, 1995). A common source
of altruistic motivation is empathic emotion, in which one's
feelings are congruent with the perceived welfare of the consumer and
goals are set to address the consumer's needs, increasing the
greater common good for all consumers and society (Batson, 1991;
Hoffman, 1976).
The application of the TPB identified ten modal behavioral beliefs,
perceived to be the most likely outcomes of placing a consumer with a
disability into a job. The modal behavioral beliefs were reported as
being valued and having a positive impact upon the consumer. When
salient behavioral beliefs are regarded as having a positive value, it
is suggested that the person holds a favorable attitude toward that
behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). This suggests that the public
rehabilitation placement professionals in this study have a favorable
attitude toward placing consumers with disabilities into jobs. Of the
behavioral beliefs, two were acknowledged by one-half or more of the
public rehabilitation placement professionals. This suggests that public
rehabilitation placement professionals perceive the most likely outcomes
of job placement as increasing the consumer's self-esteem and
increasing the consumer's autonomy. The job placement outcome of
increasing the consumer's autonomy was supported by the behavioral
beliefs that job placement allows the consumer to become independent of
public financial assistance and to become independent of public health
care benefits.
Second, the application of the TPB identified three normative
referents, perceived as being important and influential. The supervisor
was reported as the most frequent referent by four-fifths of the public
rehabilitation placement professionals, suggesting that the participants
recognize that job placement behavior may be influenced and that they
are likely to acknowledge the supervisor's influence over the
influence of peers and family. The more a public rehabilitation
placement professional perceives a referent to view placing persons with
disabilities into jobs as important, the more likely the public
rehabilitation placement professional is to perform the behavior. In
most instances, persons hold favorable attitudes toward the behaviors
they perceive their referents to think they should perform, and hold
negative attitudes toward behaviors that their referents think they
should not perform (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). The behavioral belief
findings supporting a positive attitude toward job placement outcome
suggest that public rehabilitation placement professionals perceive
their supervisors to think they should place consumers with disabilities
into jobs. Although supervisors may influence job placement behavior,
that influence may be limited by the supervisor's knowledge level
of the disability addressed. This influence should be explored and may
be dependent upon specific disabilities such as AIDS, substance abuse,
and severe mental illness.
Third, the application of the TPB identified eight impediments to
job placement that were perceived as likely to occur. This suggests that
public rehabilitation placement professionals acknowledge the impact of
impediments to, rather than resources for, job placement in facilitating
their ability to place consumers with disabilities into jobs. When
impediments are identified as salient control beliefs, individuals are
less likely to engage in behaviors when faced with such impediments
(Conner & Sparks, 1999). These findings suggest that the identified
impediments should be explored and validated. Future trainings should be
conducted to increase the rehabilitation professional's level of
self-efficacy in addressing the identified impediments impacting job
placement behavior.
In applying the TPB, only three impediments were acknowledged by at
least three-fifths of the public rehabilitation placement professionals.
This suggests that the majority of these professionals perceive
themselves as being unable to place a consumer employment agencies near me with a disability into a
job who lacks job-seeking skills, has the potential to lose public
assistance, or lacks family support. The consumer's lack of
job-seeking skills was reported as an impediment to job placement by
approximately three-fourths of the public rehabilitation placement
professionals, suggesting they acknowledge the importance and value of
job-seeking skills. The need to increase job seeking skills has been
reported as an impediment to job placement since 1965, when early
research on this topic was conducted with three job-readiness training
clinics in Toledo, Ohio (Pumo, Sehl, & Cogan, 1966). More than three
decades later, the current study suggests that a consumer's lack of
job-seeking skills continues to be an impediment. Rehabilitation
services should focus attention on this issue.
Of public rehabilitation placement professionals, approximately
two-thirds identified a consumer's potential to lose public
assistance as an impediment to placing a consumer with a disability into
a job. Rehabilitation professionals must explore this belief and
investigate the documented number of consumers receiving public
assistance and the impact of public assistance upon job placement
outcomes. Among persons with severe disabilities, 20% received
Supplemental Security Income in 1997. Only 27% of the Social Security
Administration's Disability Insurance (SSADI) beneficiaries
received a public vocational rehabilitation service (e.g., physical
therapy, vocational training, job counseling, general education, and job
placement). Of the rehabilitation services, job placement was used by 2%
of beneficiaries. Less than one fourth of one percent (.25%) of SSADI
beneficiaries return to work through public rehabilitation programs (Hennessey & Muller, 1995; Marini & Stebnicki, 1999; U.S. Census
Bureau, 2001).
Approximately three-fifths of the public rehabilitation job
placement professionals reported the lack of family support as an
impediment. The family is a major influence on the consumer's
adaptation to his or her disability and impacts consumer's
motivation to recruitment agencies near me work. Public rehabilitation placement professionals must
work with consumers to (a) understand the family dynamics of the
consumer and the impact of these upon consumer motivation and (b)
understand the consumer's role in the family and how placing the
consumer into a job will impact his or her family role.
Implications for Public Rehabilitation Job Placement Professionals
The findings from this study support the application of the TPB in
the field of public rehabilitation services to identify factors
impacting service provision. The elicited salient beliefs identified 21
factors and established three sets of modal beliefs addressing (a)
outcomes of job placement, (b) persons influencing public rehabilitation
placement professionals to place consumers into jobs, and (c)
impediments to placing a consumer with a disability into a job.
According to the TPB, job placement behavior change will occur by
addressing the 21 factors by groupings of behavioral beliefs, normative
beliefs, and control beliefs (Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Conner &
Sparks, 1999). Future job placement training should be tailored to
address and explore the factors affecting the placement of consumers
with disabilities into jobs.
Limitations
Conclusions based on this study are subject to several limitations.
First, participant's self-reports on the Rehabilitation Placement
Survey may have been biased by a reluctance to answer questions he or
she may have perceived as having relevance in evaluating job
performance, social desirability concerns, and "faking good,"
(Streiner & Norman, 1995). Second, self-reports of beliefs regarding
the placement of consumers with disabilities into jobs may not translate
into actual job placement behavior. Third, a convenience sample was used
and may not be representative of public rehabilitation placement
professionals. Fourth, although the behavior addresses the four
components of action, target, context, and time frame, the component of
target was generalized to all consumers with disabilities and not a
specific disability. Despite the limitations, the study provides the
first empirical evidence that the TPB provides a structure to identify
job placement beliefs and suggests specific issues to address for
enhancing practice.
Conclusion
With only 32% of persons with disabilities between 18 and 64 years
of age employed (National Organization on Disability, 2001), job
placement issues continue to be of paramount concern for public
rehabilitation services. The TPB was applied to develop empirical
foundations for identifying issues pertaining to the behavior of placing
consumers with disabilities into jobs. Theoretical guidelines were used
to identify 21 factors impacting job placement behavior, moving beyond
the discovery orientation of research variables to organize the data and
observe empirically based relationships. The study findings suggest that
public rehabilitation placement professionals are altruistic and hold
positive attitudes toward placing consumers with disabilities into jobs.
Participants acknowledged that their ability to place consumers with
disabilities into jobs was influenced by their supervisor and the
impediments to, rather than resources for, job placement.
Future research should examine the relationship between the
findings of this study and the intentions of public rehabilitation
placement professionals toward placing consumers with specific
disabilities into jobs (e.g., AIDS, substance abuse, severe mental
illness). Additional studies should determine the statistical
significance of beliefs upon both the intention and the behavior of
placing consumers into jobs. The concept of utilizing behavioral
theories to address specific phenomena in the discipline of public
rehabilitation services has been presented as one way in which to
further develop the empirical foundations of the field, substantiate the
phenomenon being measured, and enhance the clarity of research studies
(DeVellis, 1991; Hershenson et al., 1981; Hershenson, 1993; McAlees,
1993). In utilizing theory-driven methods, the profession of
rehabilitation counseling would be further expanded, building upon the
experience and research of the predecessors in our field.
Acknowledgement
The authors express their appreciation to the public rehabilitation
placement professionals from Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and Tennessee, who participated in this study.
Table 1
Demographics of Participants (N=155)
Characteristic N (%)
Position
Rehabilitation Counselor 74 (47.7)
Rehabilitation Placement
Specialist 81 (52.3)
Educational level
High School diploma/GED 19 (12.3)
Associate degree 8 (5.2)
Bachelor's degree 61 (39.4)
Master's degree 63 (40.6)
Doctorate 4 (2.5)
Ethnicity/race
African American 45 (29.1)
Alaskan American 3 (1.9)
Caucasian American 106 (68.4)
Hispanic/Latino American 1 (0.6)
Gender
Female 109 (70.3)
Male 46 (29.7)
Table 2
Modal Behavioral Beliefs (N=580)
Behavioral Belief N (%)
1. Increases the consumer's self-esteem 78 (13.5)
2. Increases the consumer's autonomy 75 (12.9)
3. Increases the consumer's work experience 70 (12.1)
4. Increases the consumer's social skills 68 (11.7)
5. Allows the consumer independence from
public financial assistance 58 (10.0)
6. Allows the consumer to contribute to
society 56 (9.7)
7. Allows the consumer independence from
public health care benefits 49 (8.4)
8. Assimilates the consumer into society 45 (7.8)
9. Increases structure in the consumer's life 42 (7.2)
10. Increases income through employment 39 (6.7)
Table 3
Modal Normative Beliefs (N=321)
Normative Group N (%)
1. Supervisor 133 (41.4)
2. Job placement specialist/rehabilitation
counselor peers in my agency 110 (34.3)
3. Family of the rehabilitation placement
professional 78 (24.3)
Table 4
Modal Control Beliefs (N=634)
Control Belief: N (%)
1. Consumer's lack of job seeking skills 114 (18.0)
2. Consumer's potential to lose public
assistance (e.g., S.S.D.I., Medicare) 99 (15.6)
3. Consumer's lack of family support 92 (14.5)
4. Consumer's lack of transportation 89 (9.9)
5. Employer's limited knowledge of the
abilities of persons with disabilities 75 (14.0)
6. Consumer's lack of motivation to work 64 (10.1)
7. Consumer's poor work history 59 (9.3)
8. The medical instability of the consumer's
disability 42 (6.6)
References
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review
of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitude, personality and behaviour. Milton
Keynes: Open University Press.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1972). Attitude and normative
beliefs as factors influencing behavioral intentions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21(1), 1-9.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed
behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 453-474.
All, A. C., Fried, J. H., Ritcher, J. M., Shaw, D. G., &
Roberto, K. A. (1997). The effects of HIV/AIDS education on the anxiety
of rehabilitation workers. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 45-52.
Americans with Disabilities Act, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327
(1990), codified 42 U.S.C. [section] 12101 et seq.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A
cognitive social theory. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baston, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a
social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Baston, C. D., Turk, C. L., Shaw, L. L., & Klein, T. R. (1995).
Information function of empathic emotion: Learning that we value the
other's welfare. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,
300-313.
Beck, R., Carlton, T., Alien, H., Rosenkoetter, L., & Hardy, K.
(1993). Understanding and counseling special populations with HIV
disease. American Rehabilitation, 19(3), 20-29.
Becker, E., & Gibson, C. C. (1998). Fishbein and Ajzen's
theory of reasoned action: Accurate prediction of behavioral intentions
for enrolling in distance education courses. Adult Education Quarterly,
49(1), 43-56.
Bowman, J. T. (1987). Attitudes toward disabled person: Social
distance and work competence. Journal of Rehabilitation, 53(1), 41-44.
Brooks, R. A., & Klonoski, L. E. (1999). Assisting persons
living with HIV/AIDS to return to work: Programmatic steps for AIDS
service organizations. AIDS Education and Prevention, 11(3), 212-223,
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory
construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39,
214-227.
Caufield, M., Carey, C. S., & Mason, C. Y. (1994). Project
EMPLOY: Rehabilitation services facilitating employment of individuals
with HIV/AIDS. American Rehabilitation, 20(3), 12-17.
Cohen, J., & Hanno, D. M. (1993), An analysis of underlying
constructs affecting the choice of accounting as a major. Issues in
Accounting Education, 8(2), 219-238.
Conner, M., & Sparks, P. (1999). The theory of planned
behaviour and health behaviours. In M. Conner & P. Norman (Eds.),
Predicting Health Behaviour (pp. 121-162). Buckingham, United Kingdom:
Open University Press.
Cook, D. (1987). Psychological impact of disability. In R. M.
Parker (ed.) Rehabilitation counseling: Basics & beyond. Austin, TX:
Pro-ed.
DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory of Applications.
Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
Elder, J. P., Ayala, G. X., & Harris, S. (1999). Theories and
intervention approaches to health behavior change in primary care.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(4), 275-284.
Fabian E. S., Luecking, R. G., & Tilson, G. P. (1995). Employer
and rehabilitation personnel perspectives on hiring persons with
disabilities: Implications for job development. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 61(1), 42-49.
Freedman, R. I., & Fesko, S. L. (1996). The meaning of work in
the lives of people with significant disabilities: Consumer and family
perspectives. Journal of Rehabilitation, 62(3), 49-55.
Gilbride, D., & Stensrud, R. (1993). Challenges and
opportunities for counselors in the Americans with Disabilities Act era.
NARPPS Journal, 8(2), 67-74.
Gilbride, D., Stensrud, R., Ehlers, C., Evans, E., & Peterson,
C. (2000). Employer's attitudes toward hiring persons with
disabilities and vocational rehabilitation services. Journal of
Rehabilitation, 66(4), 17-23.
Hennessey, J. C. & Muller, S. L. (1995) The effect of
vocational rehabilitation and work incentives on helping the disabled
worker beneficiary back to work. Social Security Bulletin, 58(1) 15-25.
Hershenson, D. B. (1993). Is rehabilitation ready for a theory?
Comments on Arokiasamy's article. Rehabilitation Education, 7,
99-101.
Hershenson, D. B., Crater, L. A., Enoch, B. D., Gaskell, A. W.,
Kuljian, J. M., Mackenzie, J., Spangler, A., & Tabb, B. (1981).
Toward a theory of rehabilitation counseling. Journal of Applied
Rehabilitation Counseling, 12, 23-26.
Hoffman, M. L. (1976). Emapthy, role-taking, guilt, and development
of altruistic motives. In T. Lickona (ed.), Moral development and
behavior. Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 124-143). New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Jemmott, L. S., Jemmott, J. B., & Cruz-Collins, M. (1992).
Predicting AIDS patient care intentions among nursing students. Nursing,
4, 172-177.
Kerr, N. (1970). Staff expectations for disabled persons: Helpful
or harmful. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 19, 575-579.
Kohler, C. L., Grimley, D., & Reynolds, K. (1999). Theoretical
approaches guiding the development and implementation of health
promotion programs. In J. Raczynski & R. DiClemente (Eds.), Handbook
for Health Promotion and Disease Promotion, (pp. 230-490). New York:
Plenum.
Kolvereid, L. (1996). Prediction of employment status intentions.
Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 21(1), 47-58.
Lumpe, A. T., & Haney, J. J. (1998). Science teacher beliefs
and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning. School Science
& Mathematics, 98(3), 123-136,
McAlees, D. (1993). Comments on Arokiasamy's article.
Rehabilitation Education, 7, 102-104.
Marini, I., & Stebnicki, M. A. (1999). Social security
administration's alternate provider program: What can
rehabilitation administrators expect? Journal of Rehabilitation
Administration, 23(1), 31-42.
Millington, M. J., Asner, K. K., Linkowski, D. C., &
Der-Stephanian, J. (1996). Employers and job development: The business
perspective. In E. M. Szymanski & R. M. Parker (eds.), Work and
disability: Issues and strategies in career development and job
placement, (pp. 277-287). Austin, TX: Pro-ed.
Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age difference in
technology adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force.
Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-404.
Mullins, J., Roessler, R., Schriner, K., Brown, P., & Bellini,
J. (1997). Improving employment outcomes through quality rehabilitation
counseling. The Journal of Rehabilitation, 63(4), 21-32.
National Organization on Disability. (2001). National Organization
on Disability/Harris: Survey of Americans with disabilities. (Study
No.12384). New York, NY: Harris Interactive, Inc.
Breslin, C., Li, S., Tupker, E., & Sdao-Jarvie, K. (2001).
Application of the theory of planned behavior to predict research
dissemination: A prospective study among addictions counselors. Science
Communications, 22(4), 423-437.
Payton, O. D. (1994). Research: The validation of clinical
practice. (3rd Ed.) Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.
Pumo, B., Sehl, R., & Cogan, F. (1966). Job readiness: Key to
placement. Journal of Rehabilitation, 32(5), 18-19.
Rhodes, F., & Fishbein, M. (1997). Using behavioral theory in a
computer-based health promotion and appraisal. Health Education &
Behavior, 24(1), 20-34.
Rhodes, S. D., & Hergenrather, K. C. (2002). Exploring
Hepatitis B vaccination acceptance among young men who have sex with
men: Facilitators and barriers. Preventive Medicine, 35, 128-134.
Rumril, P. D., Millington, M. J., Webb, J. M. & Cook, B. G.
(1998). Employment expectations as a differential indicator of attitudes
toward persons with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Journal of
Vocational Rehabilitation, 10, 271-280.
Schlossberg, N., & Pietrofesa, J. (1973). Perspectives on
counseling bias: Implications for counselor education. Counseling
Psychologist, 4, 44-54.
Schmidt-Davis, H., Hayward, B. J., & Kay, H. B. (2000). Basic
skills and labor market success: Findings from the VR longitudinal
study. American Rehabilitation, 11-18.
Schriner, K. F., Greenwood, R. & Johnson, V. A, (1989).
Counselor perceptions of employer concerns about workers with
disabilities and employer-rehabilitation partnerships. Rehabilitation
Counseling Bulletin, 33(2), 140-150.
Shahnasarian, M. (2001). Career rehabilitation: Integration of
vocational rehabilitation and career development in the twenty-first
century. The Career Development Quarterly, 49(3), 275-283.
Sims, J., & Wright, C. (2000). Research in Healthcare:
Concepts, Designs and Methods. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes, Lmtd.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (1995). Health measurement
scales: A practical guide to their development and use. (2nd Ed.)
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sutton, S., McVey, D., & Glanz, A. (1999). A comparative test
of the theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior in
the prediction of condom use intentions in a national sample of English
young people. Health Psychology, 18(1), 72-81.
Tsang, H., Lam, P., Ng, B., & Leung, O. (2000). Predictors of
employment outcome for people with psychiatric disabilities: A review of
the literature since the mid '80s. Journal of Rehabilitation,
66(2), 19-31.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Population profile of the United
States: 1999. (Current Population Reports, Series P23-205). Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vogt, W. P. (1999). Dictionary of Statistics & Methodology.
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Walls, R. T., Dowler, D. L., Cordingly, K., Orslene, L. E., &
Greer, J. D. (2001). Microenterprising and people with disabilities:
Strategies for success and failure. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67(2),
29-35.
Watson-Armstrong, L. A., O'Rourke, B., & Schatzien, J.
(1994). Sexual abuse and persons with disabilities: A call for
awareness. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 25(1), 36-42.
Kenneth C. Hergenrather
The George Washington University
Scott D. Rhodes
Wake Forest University Health Sciences
Randal S. McDaniel
Clarence D. Brown
Auburn University
Kenneth C. Hergenrather, Ph.D., MRC, MSEd, Department of
Counseling/Human and Organizational Studies, Graduate School of
Education and Human Development, The George Washington University, 2134
G St. NW.; Room 318, Washington, DC 20037. Email: [email protected].