Development and Validation of A Short Form of the Attitude Toward Poverty Scale

Sung Hyun Yun,Robert D Weaver

doi:10.18060/437

Abstract

This study outlines the development and validation of a short form of the 37-item Attitude toward Poverty (ATP) scale. Employing a cross-sectional survey design, the authors sampled 319 undergraduate students at a mid-sized university located in central Canada. The short form evinced high levels of internal consistency ranging from .87 to .89. Evidence for the validity was established through correlational analyses and independent samples t-tests. The findings suggest the short form is a feasible alternative to the original ATP scale for researchers and academics seeking to assess the poverty-related attitudes of university students.

Highlights

A large number of studies have been conducted to investigate attitudes toward poverty and/or impoverished persons
The results showed that the KMO value for the data was .92, which is greater than Kaiser’s (1970) recommended value of .6, suggesting the variability in the data was sufficient for conducting factor analysis
The authors described the development of the short form of the original 37-item Attitude toward Poverty (ATP) scale (Atherton et al, 1993) that measures people’s attitudes toward poverty and poor people

Summary

Introduction

A large number of studies have been conducted to investigate attitudes toward poverty and/or impoverished persons. These studies indicate the multidimensional nature of poverty-related attitudes (e.g., Cozzarelli, Wilkinson, & Tagler, 2001; Feagin, 1972; 1975; Gil, 1981; Handler & Hasenfeld, 1991; Karger & Stoesz, 1990; Price, Desmond, Snyder, & Kimmel, 1988; Rosenthal, 1993; Ryan, 1976; Shek, 2002; Smith & Stone, 1989). Two constructs frequently identified are the individualistic and structural explanations of poverty. MacDonald (1971; 1972) and Feagin (1972; 1975) empirically investigated multidimensional attitudes toward poverty. Most of them could improve their condition if they only tried”; “By pouring money into poverty programs we are destroying the very thing that made this a great and prosperous country: competition”)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion