Psychometric Investigation of the Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale

By Edward C. Bell, Arielle Silverman



This study reports on the development and initial testing of a scale to measure attitudes about blindness. The instrument was tested on 67 youth and young adults who participated in a mentoring program in 2007. Participants of this study were individuals who were legally blind, but who span the visual continuum from blind to moderate visual impairment. Therefore, the phrase, "individuals who are blind" is used to refer to the population unless otherwise indicated by the data. Instrument development and psychometric testing are reported. Results provide support for the scale and the relationship between positive attitudes about blindness and hope.


Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale

Individuals who are blind or severely visually impaired continue to suffer high rates of unemployment (Bell, 2010). There are myriad reasons for the underemployment of this population, and one of the leading theories includes negative attitudes about blindness (Omvig, 2002). Omvig suggests that individuals who feel ashamed about their visual impairment, lack understanding of the true nature of blindness, and who have low expectations for the activities that individuals who are blind can perform, tend to have diminished success in their own lives. It is surmised that this lack of belief about the capacity that individuals who are blind have to function normally is a strong indicator of how hopeful and driven these individuals will be in pursuing their own life goals (Omvig, 2002). Consequently, the Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale (SRBS) has been created to assess the attitudes and underlying expectations that individuals have about blindness. The instrument is targeted for youth and young adults who are themselves legally blind; however, the SRBS has been designed to be able to measure the attitudes of the non-disabled public towards blindness as well.

The Role of Attitudes in Rehabilitation and Education

A primary goal of rehabilitation and education programs for individuals who are blind is to facilitate the individual's full integration into the broader society (Dodds, 2007; Roy & MacKay, 2002). Full integration requires the individual to develop a positive self-concept and healthy attitudes toward blindness (Dodds, 2007). To be effective in the long term, programs for individuals who are blind must be able to support this development in people with a wide range of backgrounds and personalities. Rehabilitation and education programs serving individuals who are blind can be greatly improved through a better understanding of the factors that shape attitudes toward blindness, both within individuals with blindness themselves and among the general public.

Attitudes have long been understood as important indicators of behavior (Millington, Leierer, & Abadie, 2000; Wells-Jensen, Wells-Jensen, & Belknap, 2005) and so it follows that measures of these attitudes can be used to predict behavioral outcomes. This becomes critically important if these attitudes serve as an impediment to successful rehabilitation and/or lack of focus in training programs. If individuals who are blind are to be successful in their endeavors, it is important to identify damaging attitudes about vision loss so that more effective interventions can be employed.

Recent investigation has focused on the process of adjusting to acquired sight loss in adulthood (Allen, 1989; Dodds, 2007; Dodds, Bailey, Pearson, & Yates, 1991; Hudson, 1994). Successful adjustment requires any person experiencing significant vision loss to learn and apply new techniques for performing daily tasks and to incorporate blindness into their self-concept. People vary widely in their emotional response to vision loss, their willingness to learn new skills, and their ability to remain independent, productive, and contributing members of society. Both dispositional factors and elements of the social environment can either aid or hinder adjustment to blindness (Allen, 1989; Dodds et al., 1991; Dodds & Ferguson, 1994; Hudson, 1994). The use of appropriate measures of adjustment can enable researchers and rehabilitation professionals to identify predictors of successful adjustment, determine the most critical components of rehabilitation programs, and measure the effectiveness of existing rehabilitation interventions at facilitating healthy adjustment to, and acceptance of, vision loss.

Individuals who have been blind since birth or early childhood, in contrast, do not experience the same shift in identity from the "sighted self" to the "blind self" as do those who lose their sight later in life (Hudson, 1994). However, those with congenital blindness must still master the same specialized skills and cope effectively with negative societal messages about blindness/vision loss (Roy & MacKay, 2002). Factors such as educational opportunities, degree of usable vision, and expectations of family and friends can powerfully shape the attitudes of a child or adolescent with blindness toward an acceptance of blindness (Roy & MacKay, 2002; Schroeder, 1996). As with adult rehabilitation, a solid measure of individuals' attitudes toward blindness can be employed to evaluate educational systems for youth and young adults with visual impairments and to tailor programs to their psychosocial needs.

Since it is clear that both individual and societal attitudes toward blindness contribute to successful adjustment and rehabilitation, researchers must be able to develop valid and reliable measures of these attitudes that can be correlated with other factors. The Acceptance of Disability Scale (AD) has been used to measure people's cognitions about their vision loss and the extent to which it will impair their everyday functioning (Dodds & Ferguson, 1994) as well as acceptance of disability in other disability groups (Snead & Davis, 2002).

Attitudes and Acceptance

The Nottingham Adjustment Scale (NAS), developed in the early 1990's, combines the AD with a short subscale measuring the attitudes of people with blindness about others with vision loss, adapted from an older version of the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP), with items such as, "Visually impaired people are used to failing at most things they do". Additionally, the NAS contains measures of self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, anxiety, and depression. These measures are all significantly intercorrelated and show improvements over the course of formal rehabilitation (Dodds & Ferguson, 1994). Two problems exist with the NAS. First, the attitudinal items focus on "visual impairment," which does not tap into the underlying emotive response evoked through the connotation of words such as "blind" or "blindness." Second, the NAS was designed principally for adult rehabilitation consumers and cannot be cross-validated against other age groups or the non-disabled population.

The relationship between acceptance of blindness and attitudes toward other people with blindness suggests that it is important to foster positive conceptions of the abilities of individuals with blindness. On the other hand, the attitudes of the sighted public toward blindness exert a great impact on how persons who are blind shape their own perceptions as well as whether vision loss is congenital or acquired (Hudson, 1994; Roy & MacKay, 2002; Wells-Jensen et al., 2005).

Public attitudes toward blindness also influence policy making and budgeting priorities in blindness programs (Wells-Jensen et al., 2005). Consequently, quantifying public attitudes is just as important as quantifying the internalized attitudes of persons who are blind themselves.

Public attitudes toward people with disabilities have been assessed with various versions of the ATDP, including attitudes of college students and elementary-school children toward peers with various disabilities (Nowicki, 2006) and attitudes of persons with acquired brain injuries toward others with disabilities (Snead & Davis, 2002). A short survey was developed to evaluate college students' attitudes about Braille and to test the effects of casual Braille exposure on these attitudes (Wells-Jensen et al., 2005). However, public attitudes toward blindness and the abilities of individuals with blindness to achieve specific life goals have not yet been explored. In addition, these existing scales do not lend themselves to use by individuals who are blind, and therefore no direct comparison can be made between attitudes held by the public and the attitudes of members of the target population.

Attitudes and Hope

Research has demonstrated that acceptance of disability contributes to more positive attitudes about disability (Millington et al., 2000) and blindness in particular (Dodds et al., 1994; Wells-Jensen, et al., 2005). It has also been demonstrated that holding a more positive attitude about one's disability is related to greater hope about one's future (Miller, 2000). Specifically, Miller (2000) demonstrated across a large variety of individuals with disabilities and chronic illness that those who held more positive attitudes about self and disability felt greater internal locus of control, powerfulness, and hope. In contrast, Miller (2000) reported on cases where individuals with disabilities who remained angry, bitter, and held negative attitudes about their disability felt powerless and reported little hope for their future. Lohne and Severinsson (2006) reported on patients with spinal chord injury and found that the presence of more positive attitudes in general and the acceptance of disability were much greater indicators of hope, and resulted in quicker rehabilitation outcomes. Tschopp, Perkins, Hart-Katuin, Born, and Holt (2007) studied patients with psychiatric disabilities and found that those who held more positive attitudes about their disability and hope for their prognosis had increased employment outcomes and better prospects for tenure than did those with a negative and hopeless outlook.

Rationale for the Scale

Although separate instruments to assess attitudes toward blindness and disability have been validated in the populations of individuals with disabilities and in the public at large, no measures have been developed that can be applied to both the population of individuals who are blind as well as the general public. This is important if researchers want to be able to draw comparisons between how the general public view blindness and how individuals who are blind view blindness as well. The Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale (SRBS) has been designed to measure attitudes toward blindness as a condition and toward the specific expectations of individuals who are blind to perform valued social functions such as childrearing and employment. The scale can be applied to both respondents who are blind as well as those with unimpaired vision, and so can be used to evaluate individuals' attitudes, correlate attitudes with other factors, or test the effectiveness of interventions for individuals who are blind. The scale is also unique in that it measures attitudes toward specific nuances of blindness, such as the significance of partial vision and the ability of individuals who are blind to perform specific tasks. It is hoped that the SRBS can be applied to test the effectiveness of social interventions and to better understand the context of common stereotypes about blindness.

Scale Development

Operational Definition. It is believed that both healthy psychological adjustment (Dodds et. al., 1991) and acceptance of one's disability (Snead & Davis, 2002) are necessary for successful rehabilitation. For the population of individuals who are blind it is surmised that the world view, beliefs, and stereotypes that these individuals hold about the condition of blindness may impact their self-esteem, motivation, and engagement in their rehabilitation. The scale is conceptualized to consist of two facets of attitudes: (1) deeply held beliefs, defined as context-free generalized value statements; and (2) expectations, defined as context-specific prediction of behavioral outcomes (Millington, et al., 2000). Items reflect attitudinal beliefs (e.g., "Being totally blind is worse than being visually impaired") as well as specific expectations (e.g., "I believe that someone who is blind could be a good elementary school teacher").

Based on this definition, the scale was originally designed as a multi-dimensional measure of attitudes towards blindness, but has subsequently been re-conceptualized as a unidimentional measure of attitudes about blindness. A graduated sequence of steps was followed in constructing the scale. The scale was first developed in 2002, and has been subsequently refined. Following is a review of the steps that were followed during test construction.

Test Construction. During its initial development, the scale was conceptualized as a multidimensional measure of attitudes, consisting of five subscales. Five subscales were chosen to reflect major concepts surrounding attitude about blindness as understood by professionals working in the field. Those were: 1. stigma associated with blindness; 2. hierarchy of vision; 3. family/parenting concerns; 4. societal responsibility or concerns about individuals with visual impairments; and 5. perceptions of employability. A four-point Likert-type format was chosen for this instrument. Individuals were presented with a simple statement and asked to respond, strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree. A conscious choice was made not to include a neutral option. In this way respondents would be forced to make a choice that might more accurately identify their attitudes about vision loss. The following steps were then followed:

  • Relevant literature was reviewed, the construct of interest (i.e., attitudes about blindness) was identified, and the operational definitions were written (Dodds et al., 1991; Dodds & Ferguson, 1994; Millington et al., 2000).

  • A survey was given to 22 professionals from across the country currently working in the field of rehabilitation with individuals who are blind/visually impaired. The survey asked these professionals to identify four areas of interest, including 1. behaviors exhibited by individuals with blindness/visual impairments that reflect positive expectations/outcomes; 2. statements made by individuals with blindness/visual impairments that reflect positive attitudes about blindness; 3. behaviors exhibited by individuals with blindness/visual impairments that reflect dependency or low expectations for activities/outcomes; and 4. statements made by individuals with blindness/visual impairments that reflect negative attitudes about blindness. Data obtained from these surveys, along with the literature was used in the initial item writing.

  • An initial pool of approximately 80 items were written. These items were revised and additional items were added, totaling 160 items. Each of the five subscales contained between 20 and 40 items; however, the subscales Societal responsibility and Employment contained the majority of items.

  • The pool of items was reviewed by an expert in measurement/evaluation, and items were revised.

  • The pool of items was next given to eight professionals in the field who represented adult rehabilitation, special education, and other areas of study to the target population. These individuals were asked about the appropriateness, adequacy, and range of items. Items were again revised based on this feedback.

  • The preceding steps resulted in a much shortened scale that consisted of forty items. The number of items was felt to be sufficiently large to cover the five scales, but short enough to be completed in a reasonable time.

  • Ten adults who were blind were recruited for an initial item try-out, and their feedback was used to make final revisions to items on the scale.

  • In the fall of 2002, the instrument was pilot tested with a convenience sample of both individuals who were blind who were receiving rehabilitation training at a residential training center in Louisiana, and with non-disabled college students at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville campus.

Initial Pilot Test. Surveys were given out to 120 individuals, representing non-disabled college students at the University of Arkansas and adults who were blind and who were receiving training at a blind rehabilitation facility. Complete data were obtained on 84 respondents. Chronbach Alpha for the composite instrument was .94 for the total scale. However, alpha for the associated five subscales were A = .72, .76, .68, .84, and .77, for the scales stigma associated with blindness: hierarchy of vision; family/parenting concerns; societal responsibility; concerns about individuals with visual impairments; and perceptions of employability, respectively. This initial pilot focused only on item function; consequently, data were not obtained on respondent demographics. An appropriate factor analysis for this scale would have required approximately 400 respondents (e.g., 10 respondents for each of 40 items); however, some factor analytics were nevertheless conducted to determine if the five subscales theorized were supported by the data. With the 84 respondents, the factor analysis demonstrated that the values did not load across all five factors, but rather seemed to clump around two factors. Consequently, the instrument was re-conceptualized as a unidimentional scale of attitudes.

Scale Redevelopment. Based on the factor analysis and coefficient alpha from the pilot test, the scale was revised in three major ways. First, the loading of responses on two primary factors seemed to support the theory that attitudes were better conceptualized along the two facets of attitudes and expectations, as noted by Millington et al. (2000). Additionally, coefficient alpha demonstrated a high intercorrelation overall (A = .94), but many items were correlated at r = .40 or less. These items were reviewed for their content value, and many were eliminated. Finally, many respondents to the pilot study did not like the four-point Likert-response format, requesting an option for "not sure" or "don't know." Consequently, the scale was revised down to 20 items with a five-point Likert-type response format from strongly agree to strongly disagree, with a neutral/don't know option in the middle.

The version of the SRBS used in the current study consists of the 20-items scale and includes items such as, "The less vision someone has, the more challenging his or her life will be"; and is used to measure expectations with items such as, "I would hire a blind person to baby-sit my children." The instrument uses a 5-point Likert-type scale, anchored from 1= strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Approximately two thirds of the items are negatively worded, (e.g., "The less vision someone has, the more challenging his or her life will be"), while the remaining third are positively worded, (e.g., "I would hire a blind person to baby-sit my children").



Youth and young adults between the ages of 16-26 who met the legal definition of blindness were recruited to participate in a mentoring program sponsored by the National Federation of the Blind (NFB). Youth/young adults and their parents were asked for their consent to participate in this study as part of the program. Data were collected for these participants in September 2007. Complete data were obtained on 67 individuals. Participants included 42 females (62.69%) and 25 males (37.31%), who had a mean age of 20.88 years (SD = 3.09). The sample included 47 Caucasian Americans (70.15%); 16 African Americans (23.88%); 3 Hispanic Americans (4.48%); and 1 Asian American (1.49%).


Subjects were contacted through the program coordinators and asked to participate in the study. Parents gave consent for any minors under the age of 18, and all participants were again given an opportunity to opt out of the study at the time they were called for the interview. Data were collected via telephone interviews between September 15, 2007 and October 15, 2007. The collection of data was conducted by an independent survey research company using professional interviewers and data coding systems. Data were compiled by the interviewing company and then transmitted to the researcher for analysis. All identifying information for youth and young adults was kept confidential, data were stored on password-protected computers, and no data were released in any public forum. This study was approved by the IRB committee of Louisiana Tech University.


As noted, all data were collected via telephone interview, where a trained interviewer called each participant and read them each question, along with the response choices, and then selected the choice indicated by the participant. The sample population consisted of individuals who were blind. Consequently, respondents would require Braille, large print, a computer, or a human reader in order to answer questions. Previous experience of the principle investigator with the target population has demonstrated that a large proportion of the target population (greater than 50% in some cases) are unable to effectively utilize Braille, large print, or computers efficiently enough to focus on the content of questions that are being presented to them. Clearly, this could potentially result in differential results that are more a function of lack of access to materials than to differences in actual attitudes. As a result, and to insure consistency across the administration, it was decided to have all surveys administered via telephone interview. Data are not available to demonstrate any potential impact that telephone administration may have on participant responsiveness; however, the use of consistent testing conditions across respondents has been implemented to ensure equal access to the questionnaire.


The primary tool used in this study was a 20-item scale, tentatively titled the Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale (SRBS), which was designed to measure attitudes about blindness. In addition to the SRBS, youth and young adults also completed the Miller Hope Scale (Miller, 1986). The Miller Hope Scale (MHS) is a 40-item measure of hope or aspiration that has been used to assess the degree to which individuals feel confidence, or "hope" about their future (e.g., "I am able to imagine a positive outcome to most challenges.") The MHS has been used extensively in assessing the state of individuals with disabilities who are moving through the medical and/or rehabilitation process. Evidence has been obtained to demonstrate that individuals with greater hope scores heal more quickly, feel more personally powerful, and more efficacious in their own lives (Miller, 2000). Miller (1986) reports a high internal consistency for the scale (alpha = .93) with an acceptable two-week test-retest reliability (r = .82). The MHS has demonstrated content and concurrent validity, as well as stable factor loadings on a three-factor solution (i.e., Egan values of .30 or above), with the three factors being: (1) satisfaction with self, others and life, (2) avoidance of hope threats, and (3) anticipation of a future. Participants also completed a demographic questionnaire that included items related to education, employment, vision loss, rehabilitation training, and future goals.


The primary purpose of this study was to test the SRBS on a population of youth and young adults (ages 16-26) with legal blindness in order to establish preliminary psychometric characteristics of the scale, and to evaluate it as a tool for use in rehabilitation and educational interventions. Based on a five-point Likert scale, the SRBS has a range between 20-100. In order to investigate the psychometric characteristics of the scale and evaluate its field performance, a number of data points were collected. Following are the means and standard deviations for the sample: Chronbach's coefficient alpha to assess internal consistency, and Spearman-Brown's split-half as a secondary measure of internal consistency.


Data demonstrated that the mean SRBS score for the youth/young adults was 78.13 (SD = 14.10), with a minimum score of 24 and a maximum of 100. The next step in this analysis was to investigate the internal consistency of the scale. Chronbach's coefficient alpha for the scale was: raw = .874; standardized = .863. Next, the Spearman-Brown coefficient was used as a secondary measure of the internal consistency of the scale, and this split-half reliability was significant (r = .703, p < .01).

When the SRBS results were broken out by gender, the data demonstrated that of the 25 male participants, the mean score was 75.28 (SD = 12.92), with scores ranging from 48-94. For the 42 female participants, the mean score was 79.83 (SD = 14.65), with scores ranging between 47-99, and the four point difference between males and females was non-significant. Further analysis demonstrated that the internal consistency of the scale for male participants (A = .82) was somewhat lower than for the females (A = .88); however, this difference seems non-significant.

Analyzing differences by racial categories was difficult with this study because of the small sample size; however, the data demonstrated that African Americans (n = 16) had an average SRBS score of 74.3 (SD = 11.8); the one Asian American participant had a score of 98; the Hispanic participants (n = 3) had a mean score of 74 (SD = 10.5); and the White/Caucasian American participants (n = 47) had a mean score of 78.9 (SD = 14.9). This analysis demonstrated that the coefficient alpha by group was (A=.77) for the African Americans, (A = .73) for the three Hispanic participants, and (A = .88) for the White/Caucasian participants. With the small groups by ethnicity, meaningful analysis of internal consistency for the scale by racial group can only be considered exploratory at this stage. Finally, the data demonstrated that there was no significant correlation between SRBS scores and participant age (r = .17, p = .16), which suggests that increase with age does not, in itself, relate to more positive or negative attitudes about blindness.

Due to the nature of the mentoring program, 100% of participants were at least legally blind; however, it was hypothesized that those youth and young adults who were more accepting of their disability would be comfortable with, and prefer to be known as an individual with blindness, as opposed to an individual with a visual impairment. While all 67 participants were in fact youth and young adults with legal blindness, 43 of them (64%) preferred to be called "visually impaired" in comparison to the 24 youth (35%) who wanted to be referred to as "blind." Participants who preferred being identified as a person with a visual impairment had a lower score on the SRBS (M = 74.51, SD = 13.1) as compared with participants who preferred to be known as a person with blindness (M = 84.6, SD = 13.5), and this difference was significant, F(1, 66) = 8.86, p < .01. Further analysis demonstrated that the internal consistency for the scale remained high for both groups of participants, but was slightly lower for the youth/young adults who preferred the term "visual impairments" (A = .82) in comparison to the youth/young adults who preferred the term "blind" (A = .88).


As part of the mentoring program, youth and young adults completed the Miller Hope Scale (Miller, 1986), based on the presumption that hope is a critical component in rehabilitation, and is one variable that could be affected through a mentoring relationship. It was also assumed that youth and young adults' attitudes about their own blindness would be correlated with hope, (i.e., more positive attitudes about blindness would be associated with greater hope). For this sample, scores on the SRBS were positively correlated with scores on the Miller Hope Scale (r = .46, p < .01). These data suggest that attitudes are related to hope, yet sufficient variability exists to imply that the SRBS is measuring a different construct than the Miller Hope Scale. Dodds and Ferguson (1994) reported that the Nottingham Adjustment Scale (NAS) was demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure of psychological adjustment for adults with blindness in a training center in England, including such traits as self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, attribution style, and anxiety/depression. In a recent study of adults with blindness attending a rehabilitation training center in the mid-western U.S., Bell (Unpublished) demonstrated that the SRBS was significantly correlated with the NAS (r = .73, p < .01), lending further support to the relationship between attitudes about blindness and psychological adjustment.


The Social Responsibility about Blindness Scale was used with a group of 67 youth and young adults who were blind and yielded reasonable psychometric stability. In order to examine the structure of the scale in a rigorous fashion, several internal consistency/reliability measures were analyzed, including Chronbach's coefficient alpha to examine item intercorrelations. Spearman-Brown's split-half reliability was used as a second examination of the internal consistency of the scale, and each of these tests yielded significant data, lending support to the stability of the scale. Somewhat lower internal consistency coefficients were detected for racial minorities (i.e., African and Hispanic Americans); however, due to the very small sample size (n = 10 and 3, respectively), no definitive conclusions can be made about this until subsequent studies can be examined. Factor analysis has not yet been conducted. According to Crocker and Algina (1986) a minimum of 10-15 respondents are needed per each item on a scale when using factor analytic techniques. This would have required between 200-300 respondents, while only 67 were available.

In addition, the data demonstrated that scores on the SRBS were comparable for males and females, and did not change significantly as a function of age. The internal consistency for the scale remained stable when broken out by these groups. Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrated a significant difference between the mean scores for participants who were more accepting of blindness (i.e., preferred to be called a youth or young adult with blindness), than youth and young adults who seemed to still be struggling with acceptance (i.e., preferring to be called a youth or young adult with a visual impairment). Yet despite the significant difference between groups, the internal consistency for the scale remained stable for both groups of participants.

Of course, reliability is necessary in test construction, but it does not provide any evidence as to the test's validity. In this administration of the scale, two pieces of data lend support to the validity of the SRBS. First, the significant but moderate correlation between the SRBS and the Miller Hope Scale suggests that the SRBS is measuring a related, but different construct. The Miller Hope Scale has been used extensively in recent research, and it has documented well-developed reliability and validity statistics (Miller, 1986). Second, the significant correlation with the SRBS and the Dodds Nottingham scale for psychological adjustment in adults suggests that the SRBS is measuring a construct that is highly and positively related to psychological adjustment. These data combined do not ensure that the SRBS is a valid measure of the latent construct of attitudes about blindness, yet they do provide sufficient support to stimulate ongoing development and testing.


Although the initial testing of the SRBS has provided some promising psychometric data, further work must be done. First, it will be necessary to refine the test items in order to improve the internal consistency of the instrument, and to ensure that the items do not have ethnic/racial bias. The next steps are currently being planned to make refinements to the items based on the data, as well as critical review of the way the items are worded. Plans are currently underway to field test the SRBS on a larger sample of adults with blindness or visual impairments. The next sample will include youth and young adults who are blind, but will also include middle-age adults, senior citizens, and individuals who are not blind. In addition to this, it will be important to target individuals with blindness as they move through the vocational rehabilitation process. The SRBS is intended to be used as a diagnostic tool in rehabilitation, and therefore, it will be necessary to establish validity of the scale by using it with individuals who have been successful in the rehabilitation process, as well as those who have not. Finally, it will also be important to examine the functioning of the SRBS with a population of non-disabled individuals to determine (1) the usability for this population, and (2) the Scale's psychometric stability with this population. Plans are also underway at Louisiana Tech University to conduct another administration of the SRBS with college undergraduate and graduate students in the near future.


Allen, M. (1989). The meaning of visual impairment to visually impaired adults. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14(8), 640-646.

Bell, E. C. (2010). Competitive employment for consumers who are legally blind: A 10-year retrospective study. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 47(2), 109-116.

Bell, E. C. (Unpublished). Pathfinders Youth Mentoring Program (Final Report). Iowa Department for the Blind, Model Youth Mentoring Programs, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, October 1, 2004-September 30, 2009.

Crocker, L. & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dodds, A., Bailey, P., Pearson, A. & Yates, L. (1991). Psychological factors in acquired visual impairment: the development of a scale of adjustment. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 85(7), 306-310.

Dodds, A. (2007). Measuring psychological adjustment to disability. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Technology-Based Learning With Disability, USA, 197-205. Retrieved from

Dodds, A., & Ferguson, E. (1994). The concept of adjustment: A structural model. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88(6), 487-497.

Hudson, D. (1994). Causes of emotional and psychological reactions to adventitious blindness. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 88(6), 498-503.

Lohne, V., & Severinsson, E. (2006). The power of hope: Patients' experiences of hope a year after acute spinal cord injury. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 15(3), 315-323.

Miller, J. (1986). Development of an instrument to measure hope. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Science, 47 (11-B), 4469A.

Miller, J. (2000). Coping with chronic illness (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Davis.

Millington, M., Leierer, S., & Abadie, M. (2000). Validity and the Employment Expectation Questionnaire. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 44(1), 39-48.

Nowicki, E. (2006). A cross-sectional multivariate analysis of children's attitudes towards disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(5), 335-348.

Omvig, J. (2002). Freedom for the blind: The secret is empowerment. University of Arkansas: Region VI Rehabilitation Continuing Education Program.

Roy, A. & MacKay, G. (2002). Self-perception and locus of control in visually impaired college students with different types of vision loss. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 96(4), 254-266.

Schroeder, F. (1996). Perceptions of Braille usage by legally blind adults. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 90(3), 210-218.

Snead, S., & Davis, J. (2002). Attitudes of individuals with acquired brain injury towards disability. Brain Injury, 16(11), 947-953. doi:10.1080/02699050210147211.

Tschopp, M., Perkins, D., Hart-Katuin, C., Born, D., & Holt, S. (2007). Employment barriers and strategies for individuals with psychiatric disabilities and criminal histories. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26(3), 175-187.

Wells-Jensen, S., Wells-Jensen, J., & Belknap, G. (2005). Changing the public's attitude toward Braille: A grassroots approach. Journal of Visual Impairment and Blindness, 99(3), 133-140.

The Journal of Blindness Innovation and Research is copyright (c) 2014 to the National Federation of the Blind.

back to top