







































Children and Teenagers 
ISSN 2576-3709 (Print) ISSN 2576-3717 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct 

1 
 

Original Paper 

Teachers’ Efforts and Barriers to Implementing 

Empirically-Based Practices in Addressing Disability Stigma 
Rachel L. Oates1* 

1 University of Delaware, School of Education, Newark, DE, USA 
* Rachel L. Oates, University of Delaware, School of Education, Newark, DE, USA 

 

Received: June 22, 2023          Accepted: June 30, 2023          Online Published: July 15, 2023 

doi:10.22158/ct.v6n3p1                               URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/ct.v6n3p1 

 

Abstract 

Stigmatization of students with disabilities leads to adverse long-term effects and teachers experience 

challenges implementing empirically-based practices to address this stigma. This study explored 

teachers’ efforts to address stigma in the classroom and barriers to implementing such efforts. The 

Disability Stigma Perspectives and Practice (DSPP) survey was completed electronically by 330 

teachers from a school district. Descriptive analysis revealed that 90 percent of teachers reported 

attempts to address stigma, with social contact based practices being most frequently endorsed. 

Additionally, descriptive analysis indicated that the most commonly reported barriers to implementing 

empirically-based practices to address stigma included constraints of time, materials, class size, and 

feeling overwhelmed. The implications of these findings for school psychologists, administrators, and 

educational institutions in providing the appropriate support for teachers to successfully implement 

strategies to reduce stigma are discussed. 

Keywords 

disability stigma, inclusion, teacher support 

 

1. Introduction 

Individuals with physical or mental disabilities are often targeted by public stigma in society, provoking 

a risk of self-stigma and other adverse effects as a result (Adler & Wahl, 1998; Bell, Long, Garvan, & 

Bussing, 2011; Bellanca & Pote, 2013; Campbell, Ferguson, Herzinger, Jackson, & Marino, 2004; 

Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000; Eisenman & Tascione, 2002; 

Gillespie-Lynch, Brooks, Someki, Obeid, Shane-Simpson, Kapp, Daou, & Smith, 2015; Segall, 2011; 

Segall & Campbell, 2012; Ventieri, Clarke, & Hay, 2011; Vogel, Wade, & Hackler, 2007). Research has 

found overwhelming evidence for the presence of stigma towards individuals with disabilities, in the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

2 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

general public, in childhood peer relationships, and specifically in schools (Bellanca & Pote, 2013; 

Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2015; Katz et al., 2012; Lee, 2014; Segall, 2011; Segall 

& Campbell, 2012; Ventieri et al., 2011; Vogel et al., 2007; Yu et al., 2016). This stigma presents as 

stereotyped beliefs, such as the perception that individuals with disabilities are dangerous, 

dysfunctional, unpredictable, unintelligent, incompetent, lazy, or noncontributing, which lead to 

prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors (Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Ferrari, 2016; Wahl, 

Susin, Kaplan, Lax, & Zatina, 2011). 

The literature on disability stigma in the general public provides abundant evidence for the existence 

and harmful effects of such stigma (Adler & Wahl, 1998; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Crisp et al., 2000; 

Ventieri et al., 2011; Vogel et al., 2007). For instance, this stigma was examined in a study conducted 

by Crisp, Gelder, Rix, Meltzer, and Rowlands (2000). Typically developing individuals were 

interviewed on their perceptions of common mental disabilities. This study revealed that the majority of 

respondents viewed individuals with disabilities negatively, maintained stereotypes of these individuals, 

and avoided talking to individuals with disabilities.  

Research focusing on childhood specific stigma towards peers with disabilities reveals similarly 

negative cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors (Bell et al., 2011; Bellanca & Pote, 2013; Campbell et al., 

2004; Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2015; Ohan et al., 2013; Segall & Campbell, 2012). One such study 

conducted by Ballanca and Pote (2013) examined this stigma. Children participating were asked to read 

a vignette about a child with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), depression, or a 

learning disability or a vignette about a typically developing child. They were then surveyed about their 

attitudes toward the child in the vignette. Findings showed that the children maintained more negative 

beliefs and attitudes towards the children with disabilities as compared to the typically developing 

child. 

Another study conducted by Campbell, Ferguson, Herzinger, Jackson, and Marino (2004) presented 

similar results. In this study, children watched videotapes of a child who engaged in typical behaviors 

and a child who engaged in behaviors characteristic of an individual with autism. When surveyed about 

their attitudes and behavioral intentions towards the children in the videotapes, the participants reported 

much more favorable attitudes and intentions towards the child engaging in typical behaviors as 

compared to the child displaying behaviors characteristic of autism. 

The development of school-based stigma of students with disabilities has also been a focus of research 

(Chamberlain, Kasari, & Rotheram-Fuller, 2007; Eisenman & Tascione, 2002; Katz et al., 2012; Lee, 

2014; Segall, 2011; Yu et al., 2016). This school-based stigma is often manifested as peer victimization, 

bullying, and social alienation. One study conducted by Yu, Ostrosky, Meyet, Favazza, Mouzourou, and 

van Luling (2016) utilized teacher report to explore students’ relationships and attitudes towards peers 

with disabilities. Results revealed that typically developing students tended to avoid peers with 

disabilities and often became upset or bothered by the behaviors of the children with disabilities. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

3 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

1.1Why is Stigma Important to Understand? 

Examining and understanding the processes of stigmatization, especially of individuals with disabilities 

is invaluable, as the presence or absence of this stigma has the potential to precipitate long-term 

outcomes (Bell et al., 2011; Corrigan et al., 2010; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Dunn, 2016; Fellner, 2015; 

Ludwikowski et al., 2009; Ventieri et al., 2011; Wahl et al., 2011). As eloquently explained by the 

former U.S. Surgeon General, “stigma tragically deprives people of their dignity and interferes with 

their full participation in society” (U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1999). Whereas 

the absence of stigma in individuals with disabilities has been found to lead to positive self-beliefs and 

developments of social ties to the community, the presence of stigma causes long-term negative 

outcomes, such as worsened prognosis for the disability itself, interference with treatment effects, 

worsened self-esteem and wellbeing, diminished social outlooks, decreased academic and professional 

achievements, and adverse influence on risks of incarceration and homelessness (Bell et al., 2011; 

Bellanca & Pote, 2013; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Dorsey, Mouzourou, Park, 

Ostrosky, & Favazza, 2016; Dunn, 2016; Eisenman, Pell, Poudel, & Pleet-Odle, 2015; Fellner, 2015; 

Katz et al., 2012; Ludwikowski et al., 2009; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; Vogel et al., 2010).  

The stigma of individuals with disabilities has been found to predict the course and impact of the 

disability both directly and through its influence on treatment (Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Power & 

Green, 2010; Ludwikowski et al., 2009; Vogel et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2010; Vogel et al., 2013). 

Abundant research has provided evidence of the harmful effects of stigma on individuals’ attitude 

toward treatments, such as counseling, psychiatric care, and other supports, as well as their likelihood 

to seek treatment, stay in treatment, and fully comply with such treatment (Bell et al., 2011; Corrigan & 

Shapiro, 2010; Esters, Cooker, & Ittenbach, 1998; Ferrari, 2016; Ludwikowski et al., 2009; Mann & 

Himelein, 2008; Martin, J., 2010; Murman et al., 2014; NASP, 2010; Ohan et al., 2015; Power & Green, 

2010; Sirey, Bruce, Alexopoulos, Perlick, Raue, Friedman, & Meyers, 2001; Ventieri et al., 2011; Vogel 

et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2010; Vogel et al., 2013; Wahl et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016). Beyond the 

effects of the stigma towards individuals with disabilities, the literature labels specific negative 

attitudes towards individuals who seek treatment as help-seeking stigma, which is defined as the 

perception that people who seek treatment are undesirable or socially unacceptable (Ludwikowski et al., 

2009). Studies have consistently found support for the adverse effects of stigma on treatment (Murman 

et al., 2014; Vogel et al., 2007; Vogel et al., 2010). The effects of both public and self-stigma on 

attitudes towards treatment and willingness to seek treatment were revealed in a study conducted by 

Vogel, Wade, and Hackler (2007). Based on the analysis of student survey responses, findings 

determined that perceptions of public stigma influenced self-stigma, which effected attitudes toward 

treatment, which then impacted willingness to seek treatment (Vogel et al., 2007). This relationship is 

presented in Figure 1, drawn from the 2007 study conducted by Vogel, Wade, and Hackler. These 

findings were replicated in a similar study conducted by Vogel, Shechtman, and Wade (2010) focusing 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

4 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

on group counseling as the treatment in question. Another study conducted by Sirey, Bruce, 

Alexopoulos, Perlick, Raue, Friedman, and Meyers (2001) revealed parallel effects of stigma on 

treatment. Individuals who were newly admitted to treatment were surveyed about their perception of 

public stigma and their treatment compliance was tracked over time. Results indicated that the 

participants who perceived greater stigma were more likely to withdrawal from treatment early.  

The literature presents ample empirical indication of the detrimental impact of stigma on confidence, 

self-esteem, self-efficacy, and overall wellbeing (Bell et al., 2011; Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Corrigan et 

al., 2010; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Dorsey et al., 2016; Mann & Himelein, 

2008; Martin, J., 2010; Wahl et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016). These adverse effects arise in part 

from the influence of discrimination, social alienation, and victimization resulting from the stigma, 

which lead to discouragement and damage self-esteem (Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Wahl et al., 2011). 

Another explanation of this process is suggested in a theorized self-fulfilling prophesy influence known 

as the “why try effect”. Specifically, it is suggested that when individuals believe and internalize stigma, 

they discontinue attempts to succeed and become convinced that they are unable to achieve their goals, 

thus diminishing their self-esteem and self-efficacy (Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010). 

Social rejection is another great risk for individuals targeted by stigma (Bell et al., 2011; Bellanca & 

Pote, 2013; Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Dorsey et al., 2016; Katz et al., 2012; 

Ventieri et al., 2011; Wahl et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016). In some cases, the discriminatory 

behavior caused by the stigma of individuals with disabilities is then compounded by symptomatic 

social and emotional impairments, making social isolation an even larger risk (Bellanca & Pote, 2013; 

Dorsey et al., 2016). Studies have found that children with disabilities are bullied in school at alarming 

rates, with some finding that as many as ninety-four percent of students with disabilities are bullied 

each year (Chen & Schwartz, 2012). This social isolation and lack of peer relationships may lead to 

many other risk factors in education, employment, and emotional development (Chen & Schwartz, 

2012; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Ventieri et al., 2011). 

Stigmatization is known to adversely affect individuals’ academic and professional achievement (Bell 

et al., 2011; Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Corrigan et al., 2010; Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & 

Shapiro, 2010; Dorsey et al., 2016; Katz et al., 2012; Mann & Himelein, 2008; Martin, J., 2010; 

Morrow, Hubbard, & Swift, 2014; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; Ventieri et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016). 

In particular, individuals targeted by stigma and associated discriminatory behavior are more likely to 

experience academic failure, less positive school attitudes, increased problem behavior, more 

suspensions, worse attendance, and higher retention rates (Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Dorsey et al., 2016; 

Katz et al., 2012; Morrow et al., 2014; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; Weisman et al., 2016). Moreover, 

perceived public stigma has been shown to decrease the likelihood that students disclose their 

disabilities to teachers in later education, precluding them from receiving necessary supports in class 

(Martin, 2010). The experienced stigma as well as this diminished academic achievement then 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

5 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

negatively impact professional outlook by increasing risk of unemployment, discrimination in the 

workplace, and interference with goals at work (Bell et al., 2011; Corrigan et al., 2010; Corrigan & 

Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Mann & Himelein, 2008; O’Driscoll et al., 2012; Ventieri et al., 

2011). Finally, discrimination and diminished employment rates resulting from stigma may harm 

housing options and increase risk of delinquency and incarceration frequency and duration (Bell et al., 

2011; Mann & Himelein, 2008; O’Driscoll et al., 2012).  

However, preventing public and self-stigma from early in an individual’s childhood would effectively 

reduce the risk of these many negative outcomes, as well as increase the incidence of positive 

self-beliefs and social connections (Dunn, 2016; Eisenman, et al., 2015). The positive effects of 

successful efforts to maximize acceptance of students with disabilities were demonstrated in a study 

conducted by Eisenman, Pell, Poudel, and Pleet-Odle (2015). Students with disabilities in an inclusive 

high school who were interviewed about their experiences in this study specifically described how the 

acceptance of peers and teachers improved their confidence and self-beliefs. Clearly, the abundant 

detriments to individuals targeted by stigma contrasted with the positive effects of increasing 

acceptance provides evidence for the necessity to thoroughly understand the development of stigma in 

order to effectively combat its impact on those effected. 

1.2 Empirically-Based Practices to Increase Acceptance in the Classroom 

Research provides evidence of the critical nature of implementing empirically-based practices to 

increase acceptance of students with disabilities in the classroom (Fellner, 2015; Katz et al., 2012; 

Murman et al., 2014; Segall & Campbell, 2012; Staniland & Byrne, 2013; Weisman et al., 2016). These 

practices should be preventative, multi-tiered, and promote inclusion, understanding, solidarity, social 

acceptance, and respect for all people (Chen & Schwartz, 2012; Dorsey et al., 2016; Fellner, 2015; Katz 

et al., 2012). Teachers should protect students with disabilities from teasing and bullying both because 

of their responsibility to create a safe, educational environment, as well as the research support for the 

greater relative effectiveness of acceptance efforts run by teachers in school for children at a young age 

(Bellanca & Pote, 2013; McAuliffe, Hubbard, & Romano, 2009; Segall & Campbell, 2012; Staniland & 

Byrne, 2013; Ventieri et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016).  

The literature supports three primary methods of increasing acceptance in the classroom: education, 

social contact, and advocacy or protest (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Ferrari, 

2016). Education based methods teach students about disabilities, characteristics and treatment, and 

how to approach individuals with disabilities. Empirically based educational methods may include 

explicit educational programs, programs integrated into the curriculum, educational videos, fiction or 

non-fiction books, or theater productions (Salinger, 2020). Social contact based methods involve 

interaction with individuals with disabilities to reduce stigma. Some research suggests that social 

contact may be most effective in increasing acceptance and maintaining the impact long-term (Corrigan 

& Shapiro, 2010; Ferrari, 2016; Mann & Himelein, 2008; Staniland & Byrne, 2013). Social contact 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

6 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

may involve direct social contact with peers or adults with disabilities, or indirect or vicarious social 

contact involving video narratives about experiences with disabilities, written narratives by people with 

disabilities, descriptions about personal relationships with individuals with disabilities, or discussions 

of well-known figures with disabilities (Salinger, 2020). Finally, advocacy or protest methods reduce 

stigma through involvement in student clubs or organizations to increase awareness or acceptance of 

disabilities, school-wide movements to increase acceptance, or organized protests of stigma or 

discrimination within the community or through publications (Salinger, 2020). Each of these strategies 

may take on various forms, an understanding of which enables schools to suggest the most appropriate 

for use by their teachers. 

1.2.1 School-Wide Initiatives  

Practices to increase acceptance of students with disabilities may also be implemented at the 

school-wide level through anti-stigma or anti-bullying campaigns, organizations, or behavior support 

systems. School wide campaigns may contest stigma of individuals with disabilities by focusing on 

increasing acceptance of behavioral or emotional difficulties, mental health issues, or seeking 

professional help (Anti-Defamation League, 2017; Bear, Witcomb, Elias, & Blank, 2015; Best Buddies 

International, 2017; MHA, 2017; Ministry of Education, 2012; Pacer Center, Inc., 2016; Southern 

Poverty Law Center, 2017; The Department of Safe Schools, 2017). Research has found that these 

types of large-scale advocacy campaigns are effective in decreasing stereotypes (Corrigan & Penn, 

1999). Many school-based campaigns also work through the provision of factual information about 

disabilities to decrease stigma through the improvement of accurate understandings of disabilities 

(Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Lequia, 2015; Mann & Himelein, 2008). For 

instance, the #OK2TALK initiative changes the dialogue about mental illness in the school, home, and 

community, while also providing prevention and early intervention resources in schools (Geisler, 

Heidlberg, & Van Velsor, 2014; MHA, 2017). Similarly, the It’s Ok to Get Help! campaign implements 

education and awareness methods to decrease the stigma of seeking professional help for disabilities or 

mental health issues (MHA, 2017). Other school-wide campaigns focus more generally on improving 

peer acceptance or decreasing bullying on a broader scale. The No Place for Hate initiative, for 

example, aims to create unified, inclusive school settings by empowering students, teachers, and 

parents to stand against bias and bullying (Anti-Defamation League, 2017). Another school-wide 

campaign to increase acceptance is the Teaching Tolerance operation, which provides classroom and 

school-wide resources for this purpose (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2017; The Department of Safe 

Schools, 2017; The School District of Palm Beach County, 2017). Additionally, schools may endorse 

national or international awareness campaigns, such as the National Bullying Prevention Month, which 

provides education to prevent bullying, and Pink Shirt Day, an international unified movement to take a 

stand against bullying (Ministry of Education, 2012; Pacer Center, Inc., 2016; The School District of 

Palm Beach County, 2017; Thompson, 2017). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

7 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

School based organizations focusing on increasing acceptance are also effective in reducing stigma, as 

types of empirically-based advocacy or protest methods (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 

2010; Cramer, 2015; Ferrari, 2016; Murman et al., 2014). Several of these groups focus specifically on 

decreasing disability stigma, and may also work through the incorporation research based education or 

social contact practices (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Lequia, 2015; Mann & 

Himelein, 2008; Park & Chitiyo, 2011; Staniland & Byrne, 2013). For instance, the Best Buddies 

program promotes inclusion and acceptance of students with intellectual disabilities by pairing them 

with typically developing peers to facilitate shared activities, experiences, and social participation (Best 

Buddies International, 2017; Hardman & Clark, 2006). MPower for Teens, a high school level student 

organization, reduces stigma of mental health issues by providing education on these issues, involving 

specialists in the field in discussions and projects, and facilitating community service initiatives to 

benefit individuals with mental health issues (MHA, 2017). Alternatively, student led organizations 

may focus on contesting bullying in general. The Safe School Ambassadors (SSA) program, for 

example, recruits students in grades four to twelve who have been identified as confident, motivated, 

and socially aware leaders to combat social exclusion, bullying, and peer mistreatment in their schools 

(The Department of Safe Schools, 2017; The School District of Palm Beach County, 2017). 

Behavioral support systems may also increase acceptance of all students by improving school climate 

to create socially safe learning environments (Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 2015; 

Harrison & Thomas, 2014). The School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SwPBS) system in particular 

supports social, academic, and behavioral competence through the implementation of school-wide 

targeted interventions. SwPBS emphasizes the importance of data based decision making, systems 

change, and empirically-based practices (Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 2015; 

Harrison & Thomas, 2014; The Department of Safe Schools, 2017; The School District of Palm Beach 

County, 2017). Likewise, the Social Emotional Learning (SEL) approach works towards students’ 

long-term social and emotional capabilities through the employment of explicit social emotional 

education, promotion of positive school climate, and provision of opportunities for contributory service 

(Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 2015; Harrison & Thomas, 2014). Although these 

behavioral support systems have much broader and wide reaching aims, research shows that effective 

implementation increases acceptance of all students (Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 

2015; Harrison & Thomas, 2014). Considering these research based school-wide initiatives, it is 

evident that there are many practices to increase acceptance of students with disabilities that may take 

place outside the classroom in addition to those within.  

1.3 Barriers to Implementing Efforts to Reduce Stigma 

Considering factors that may be preventing teachers from implementing efforts to reduce stigma of 

students with disabilities is necessary in developing supports for teachers for this purpose. Based on 

research, one of the most commonly reported barriers to implementing efforts to reduce stigma is lack 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

8 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

of training, which decreases understanding of how to implement strategies and feelings of competency 

in this practice (Bell et al., 2011; Cramer, 2015; Segall, 2011; Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016). 

Studies surveying teachers about their training found that seventy-seven to ninety-nine percent of 

teachers report a desire for more training on working with students with disabilities (Bell et al., 2011). 

Another frequently cited barrier is lack of administrative support for using resources to reduce stigma 

(Lee, 2014; Segall, 2011; Segall & Campbell, 2012; Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016). This may 

also preclude teachers from obtaining the necessary in-service training and resources to implement 

such interventions. Other regularly noted barriers include lack of time or resources, difficulties with 

logistics, overabundance of responsibilities, programs that are difficult to sustain, difficulties with 

student engagement and behavior, and lack of teacher motivation (Dorsey et al., 2016; Lee, 2014; 

Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016). By understanding these barriers, supports may be developed to 

encourage and enable teachers to employ evidence based strategies to reduce stigma in their classes. 

 

2. Method 

2.1 Research Questions 

2.1.1 Research Question 1: Employment of Empirically-Based Practices 

The frequency of teachers’ use of empirically-based practices to increase acceptance of students with 

disabilities in the classroom is known to be scarce (Cramer, 2015; Segall, 2011; Weisman et al., 2016; 

Yu et al., 2016). However, measures corresponding to the most updated research on strategies to reduce 

stigma are lacking. In order to fully understand the present classroom conditions teachers establish, it 

was imperative to gather an accurate estimate of their use of empirically-based practices. 

It was predicted that all teachers would report using at least one method of attempting to address stigma 

in the classroom in the past year, although not all would report an empirically-based practice. This 

research question was answered by analyzing frequency tables generated from teachers’ reports of their 

use over the past year of strategies to increase acceptance in their classrooms. 

2.1.2 Research Question 2: Barriers to Implementation 

Commonly reported barriers to implementing efforts to increase acceptance in the classroom include 

lack of training, administrative support, time, or resources, difficulties with logistics, overabundance of 

responsibilities, programs that are difficult to sustain, difficulties with student engagement and behavior, 

and lack of teacher motivation (Bell et al., 2011; Cramer, 2015; Dorsey et al., 2016; Lee, 2014; Segall, 

2011; Segall & Campbell, 2012; Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016). The previous research on this 

topic was not related to increasing acceptance of students with disabilities in particular and may be 

somewhat outdated. For these reasons, gaining an understanding of the most frequently reported 

barriers could enable recommendations to be made in supporting teachers in implementing 

empirically-based practices to address stigma of these students. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

9 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Based on the literature, it was predicted that the most commonly reported barriers to implementing 

empirically-based practices to increase acceptance of students with disabilities would be lack of 

training, administrative support, and time. This research question was answered through descriptive 

analysis of teachers’ responses to items on their experienced barriers to addressing stigma. 

2.2 Participants 

Three hundred and thirty teachers, including 169 from the elementary level and 161 from the secondary 

level, were surveyed about their attempts to address stigma and barriers to addressing stigma to conduct 

the analyses necessary to answer the research questions for this study. Based on an a priori power 

analysis completed using G*Power 3.1 software with overall power set to 0.80 and an anticipation of a 

medium effect size (Cohen’s [1988] f = .25), a sample size of at least ninety six participants was 

required to answer the research questions (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009). The intended 

sample size was larger to ensure more accurate results. 

The participants were recruited through a large school district in south Florida, with the approval of the 

appropriate district officials. Current demographic information on the teaching workforce was obtained 

and effort was made to approximate these demographics in the participant sample in order to increase 

the external validity of the findings. The demographics of the participants are presented in Table 1 and 

with the results. The eligibility criteria for the participants included individuals who currently work in 

schools as classroom teachers at the elementary, middle, or high school level. Consent forms were 

presented as an access step to the survey measure. The consent procedures were followed as required 

for research with human subjects by the University of Delaware Institutional Review Board and the 

school district Department of Research and Evaluation.  

 

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Participants and Teaching Workforce 

 Pilot Study  

Participants 

Research Study 

Participants 

Teaching Workforce 
a 

Characteristic n % b n % b n (in 

thousands) 

% b 

Total 142 100 330 100 3,385 100 

Gender       

Female 116 82 269 82 2,584 76 

Male 25 18 59 18 802 24 

Other 1 1 2 1 0 0 

Age       

20-39 59 42 135 41 1,497 44 

40-59 63 44 162 49 1,632 48 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

10 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

60 or more 12 8 30 9 256 8 

Did not provide 9 6 3 1 0 0 

Ethnicity/Race       

White 108 76 268 81 2,773 82 

Black or African American 12 9 31 9 231 7 

American or Alaska Native 1 1 1 0 17 1 

Asian or Asian American 1 1 3 1 61 8 

Multiracial 9 6 13 4 35 1 

Other 11 8 14 4 0 0 

Highest Degree       

High School diploma 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Associate’s degree 1 1 1 0 128 4 

Bachelor’s degree 64 45 172 52 1,350 40 

Master’s degree 69 49 136 41 1,614 48 

Specialist’s degree 3 2 9 3 257 8 

Doctorate degree 5 3 11 3 37 1 

Years of Teaching Experience       

1-9 47 33 123 37 1,433 43 

10-20 60 42 125 38 1,232 36 

More than 20 35 25 82 25 720 21 

Grades Taught       

Elementary 61 43 169 51 1,726 51 

Secondary 81 57 161 49 1,659 49 
a The figures provided for the “Teaching Workforce” were located in a report published by the National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2016).  
b Percentages are rounded to the nearest number and therefore may not add to 100. 
c These figures were not provided in the NCES report. 

 

2.3 Measures 

The Disability Stigma Perspectives and Practice (DSPP) survey measure was developed and pilot tested 

in a previous, related study (Oates, 2023). The five-part questionnaire focused on teachers’ personal 

attitudes towards students with disabilities, recognition of public stigma, attempts to address stigma, 

barriers to addressing stigma in the classroom, and background information. Responses from the first 

and fourth scales were utilized to answer the research questions in the current study. 

2.4 Procedure 

Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to data collection. Permission was then obtained 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

11 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

from the governing body of the school district to recruit their members for this study. Information about 

the study and invitations to participate were distributed through email to the members of the 

participating school district. The email invited potential participants to use an included link to 

participate in the survey via the online survey software Qualtrics or to contact the researchers with any 

questions. Consent forms were included in the online survey as an access step to the survey measure.  

Respondents were asked to complete each survey measure involved in the study. Analyses were 

conducted through a series of statistical tests run on the SPSS and Mplus software to answer the 

research questions. 

2.5 Data Analysis 

The demographic characteristics of the participants used in the pilot study were compared to those of 

the respondents used to answer the research questions to ensure consistency and generalizability. Prior 

to addressing the research questions, differences in responses from elementary as compared to 

secondary teachers were examined. Data was analyzed by level, as significant differences were 

apparent. To answer the first question on attempts to address stigma in the classroom, frequency tables 

were run to examine how commonly empirically-based practices were used and which were most 

usually implemented. The second research question on barriers to implementing empirically-based 

practices to reduce stigma was answered using descriptive analysis. This was conducted with 

participants’ responses to the fourth scale.  

 

3. Results 

3.1 Employment of Empirically-Based Practices 

Frequencies of reported employment of empirically-based practices for increasing acceptance in the 

classroom are displayed in Table 2, both by teacher level and combined totals. Of the 330 teachers, 297 

(90%) reported using at least one method of attempting to address stigma in the prior year. Nearly all of 

these indicated use of at least one empirically-based practice (293, 89%). The non-empirically-based 

practices include those written in as responses to the “other” item that do not align with any 

empirically-based practice or include enough information to make a determination, such as “bullying,” 

“provide information in students’ home language with disability if home language is other than 

English,” and “setting goals for an activity, day, or period of time.” 

On average, teachers used 6.70 empirically-based practices from the twenty-three listed on the survey 

measure. The most commonly implemented practices overall included facilitating meaningful contact 

between students with and without disabilities (201, 61%) and facilitating peer support methods in the 

classroom between students with and without disabilities (196, 59%). Conversely, the least commonly 

implemented practices included plays or puppet shows (22, 7%), watching video taped first person 

narratives (21, 8%), and organization of clubs to increase awareness of disabilities (29, 9%) or to 

support those with disabilities (32, 10%). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

12 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Reported use of empirically-based practices from each of the three primary types, education, social 

contact, and advocacy, was also examined. Overall, teachers most commonly implemented educational 

practices (269, 82%), followed by social contact practices (267, 81%), and then advocacy practices (83, 

25%). 

Teachers were also asked about school-wide practices to address stigma, as well as their involvement in 

these activities. The most commonly reported school-wide practices included School-Wide Positive 

Behavior Supports (227, 69%), Pink Shirt Day (192, 58%), National Bullying Prevention Month (175, 

53%), Safe School Ambassadors (76, 23%), and Best Buddies (70, 21%). The majority of teachers (235, 

71%) reported some involvement in some school-wide practice to address stigma or bullying. 

Correlational analysis revealed that the presence of school-wide practices was significantly associated 

with teachers’ attempts to address stigma in their own classrooms (rpb = .169, p = .002), such that 

teachers were more likely to implement attempts to address stigma in their classroom if there were 

school-wide practices in place as well. Furthermore, teachers’ degree of involvement with such 

school-wide practices was significantly related to their use of empirically-based practices in their own 

classrooms (rpb = .342, p = .001), in that teachers were more likely to implement attempts to address 

stigma in their own classrooms if they were more involved in school-wide practices. 

 

Table 2. Reported Use of Empirically-Based Practices for Addressing Stigma 

 Elementary 

Teachers 

 Secondary 

Teachers 

 Total 

Practices n %  n %  n % 

Total 169 100  161 100  330 100 

         

Facilitate meaningful social contact between students 

with and without disabilities 

114 68  87 54  201 61 

Facilitate peer support methods in the classroom 

between students with and without disabilities 

106 63  90 56  196 59 

Providing typically developing students with 

strategies and skills to work with students with 

disabilities 

98 58  69 43  167 51 

Ensure that assistants in the classroom are viewed as 

support for whole class, not individual students 

96 57  71 44  167 51 

Teaching about strengths and difficulties of students 

with disabilities 

95 56  59 37  154 47 

Openly share about personal experience with an 76 45  64 40  140 42 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

13 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

individual with a disability 

Discussing myths and facts about disabilities 74 44  62 39  136 41 

Fictional books involving characters with disabilities 104 62  22 14  126 38 

Originally developed lesson(s) focusing on 

disabilities 

66 39  52 32  118 36 

Embedding mental health awareness into curriculum 

(i.e. teach about disability as form of diversity in 

social studies, read and discuss literature about 

disabilities in language arts, etc.) 

57 34  50 31  107 32 

Discuss celebrities known to have disabilities 51 30  42 26  93 28 

Non-fiction books on disabilities  75 44  11 7  86 26 

Discussions or Q & A with an individual with a 

disability 

44 26  38 24  82 25 

Packaged curriculum to educate students about 

disabilities  

36 21  28 17  64 19 

Reading first person narratives by individuals with 

disabilities 

43 25  17 11  60 18 

Videos on disabilities  38 23  22 14  60 18 

Discussions about videos on disabilities 33 20  21 13  54 16 

Involve students in advocacy campaigns for disability  23 14  23 14  46 14 

Facilitate a week dedicated to anti-stigma  27 16  17 11  44 13 

Organize or lead club to support those with 

disabilities  

13 8  19 12  32 10 

Organize or lead club to increase awareness about 

disabilities 

10 6  19 12  29 9 

Watching video taped first person narratives by 

individuals with disabilities 

16 10  11 7  27 8 

Plays or puppet shows about disabilities 18 11  4 3  22 7 

 
3.1.1 Elementary Teachers 

Ninety-three percent (157) of elementary teachers reportedly implemented at least one method of 

attempting to address stigma. Similarly, 92% (156) of elementary teachers used at least one 

empirically-based practice. 

Elementary teachers used on average 7.77 empirically-based practices from the twenty-three listed. The 

most commonly implemented practices for elementary teachers included facilitating meaningful 

contact between students with and without disabilities (114, 68%) and facilitating peer support methods 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

14 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

in the classroom between students with and without disabilities (106, 63%). The least commonly 

implemented practices included organization of clubs to increase awareness of disabilities (10, 6%) or 

to support those with disabilities (13, 8%), and watching video-taped first person narratives (16, 10%). 

In terms of the types of empirically-based practices, elementary teachers most commonly implemented 

educational practices (152, 90%), followed by social contact practices (146, 86%), and then advocacy 

practices (44, 26%).  

For elementary teachers, the most commonly reported school-wide practices to address stigma included 

School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports (125, 74%), Pink Shirt Day (104, 62%), and National 

Bullying Prevention Month (93, 55%). The majority of teachers (132, 78%) reported some involvement 

in some school-wide practice to address stigma or bullying. Correlational analysis revealed that the 

presence of school-wide practices was significantly associated with teachers’ attempts to address 

stigma in their own classrooms (rpb = .177, p = .021), such that teachers were more likely to implement 

attempts to address stigma in their classroom if there were school-wide practices in place as well. 

Teachers’ degree of involvement with such school-wide practices was also significantly related to their 

use of empirically-based practices in their own classrooms (rpb = .244, p = .001), in that teachers were 

more likely to implement attempts to address stigma in their own classrooms if they were more 

involved in school-wide practices. 

3.1.2 Secondary Teachers 

Eighty-seven percent (140) of secondary teachers used at least one method of attempting to address 

stigma, a slightly lower percent than elementary teachers. Comparably, 85% (137) of secondary 

teachers implemented at least one empirically-based practice.  

Secondary teachers used 5.58 empirically-based practices of the twenty-three listed on average. Results 

showed a statistically significant difference between elementary and secondary teachers on reported 

quantity of implemented empirically-based practices to address disability stigma (t = 3.95, df [327], p 

= .001). The effect size was medium (d = .44). The most commonly implemented practices for 

secondary teachers included facilitating peer support methods in the classroom between students with 

and without disabilities (90, 56%) and facilitating meaningful contact between students with and 

without disabilities (87, 54%4). Conversely, the least commonly implemented practices for included 

plays or puppet shows (4, 3%), watching video-taped first person narratives (11, 7%), and non-fiction 

books on disabilities (11, 7%). 

The most commonly implemented types of empirically-based practices by secondary teachers were 

social contact practices (121, 75%), followed by educational practices (117, 73%), and then advocacy 

practices (39, 24%). 

For secondary teachers, the most commonly reported school-wide practices to address stigma included 

School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports (102, 63%), Pink Shirt Day (88, 55%), and National Bullying 

Prevention Month (82, 51%), Best Buddies (62, 39%), and Safe School Ambassadors (51, 32%). The 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

15 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

majority of teachers (91, 57%) reported some involvement in some school-wide practice to address 

stigma or bullying. Correlational analysis revealed that the presence of school-wide practices was 

significantly associated with teachers’ attempts to address stigma in their own classrooms (rpb = .165, 

p = .037), such that teachers were more likely to implement attempts to address stigma in their 

classroom if there were school-wide practices in place as well. Furthermore, teachers’ degree of 

involvement with such school-wide practices was significantly related to their use of empirically-based 

practices in their own classrooms (rpb = .388, p = .001), in that teachers were more likely to implement 

attempts to address stigma in their own classrooms if they were more involved in school-wide 

practices. 

3.2 Barriers to Implementing Empirically-Based Practices 

Mean values of endorsed barriers to implementing empirically-based practices for increasing 

acceptance in the classroom are displayed in Table 3, both by teacher level and combined. Overall, the 

most highly endorsed barriers included lack of time to implement interventions (M = 4.87, SD = 1.92), 

lack of time to create interventions (M = 4.78, SD = 1.89), class size (M = 4.76, SD = 2.03), and lack of 

materials to use with students (M = 4.63, SD = 1.92). The least endorsed barriers included thinking 

interventions would not work (M = 2.95, SD = 1.86), lack of administrative support (M = 3.45, SD = 

2.05), lack of communication/support from school psychologist (M = 3.55, SD = 1.91), and 

ineffectiveness of previous  interventions suggested (M = 3.59, SD = 1.83). 

Responses were also analyzed by the factors of Lack of Training, Lack of Resources, and Other 

Barriers, as indicated by the factor analysis. Overall, Lack of Resources was most highly endorsed (M 

= 4.67, SD = 1.75), followed by Lack of Training (M = 3.91, SD = 1.72), and then Other Barriers (M = 

3.83, SD = 1.47). 

 

Table 3. Barriers to Implementing Empirically-Based Practices for Addressing Stigma 

 Elementary 

Teachers 

 Secondary 

Teachers 

 Total 

Barriers Mean SD  Mean SD  Mean SD 

Factors         

Lack of Resources 4.76 1.67  4.57 1.83  4.67 1.75 

Lack of Training 3.88 1.61  3.93 1.83  3.91 1.72 

Other Barriers 3.71 1.43  3.95 1.51  3.83 1.47 

         

Lack of time to implement intervention  4.93 1.88  4.80 1.96  4.87 1.92 

Lack of time to create intervention  4.86 1.83  4.68 1.96  4.78 1.89 

Class size  4.37 2.06  5.17 1.93  4.76 2.03 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

16 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Lack of materials to use with students 4.77 1.84  4.48 1.99  4.63 1.92 

Lack of time to investigate intervention 

possibilities  

4.75 1.87  4.41 2.06  4.58 1.97 

Lack of time to analyze stigma 4.51 1.82  4.48 2.00  4.50 1.91 

Overwhelmed or exhausted from teaching 

duties 

4.40 1.99  4.49 2.22  4.45 2.11 

Demands to perform nonteaching duties  4.25 2.01  4.29 2.09  4.27 2.04 

Lack of training on evidence-based 

interventions  

3.99 1.84  4.19 1.93  4.09 1.88 

Lack of training on stigma of children with 

disabilities 

3.86 1.82  4.07 2.02  3.96 1.92 

Lack of communication with parents  3.78 1.91  4.02 2.06  3.90 1.98 

Lack of training on research procedures  3.95 1.78  3.82 1.99  3.89 1.89 

Lack of training on reading and 

understanding research  

3.72 1.74  3.66 1.97  3.69 1.85 

Inability of students to benefit from 

regular instruction  

3.59 1.85  3.76 1.91  3.67 1.88 

Severity of stigma 3.60 1.83  3.73 1.89  3.66 1.86 

Ineffectiveness of previous interventions 

suggested  

3.55 1.77  3.36 1.89  3.59 1.83 

Lack of communication/support from 

school psychologist  

3.37 1.79  3.75 2.02  3.55 1.91 

Lack of administrative support  3.36 2.06  3.55 2.03  3.45 2.05 

Think intervention will not work  2.82 1.78  3.09 1.93  2.95 1.86 

 

3.2.1 Elementary Teachers 

For elementary teachers, the most highly endorsed barriers to implementing empirically-based practices 

to address stigma included lack of time to implement interventions (M = 4.93, SD = 1.88), lack of time 

to create interventions (M = 4.86, SD = 1.83), lack of materials to use with students (M = 4.77, SD = 

1.84), and lack to time to investigate intervention possibilities (M = 4.75, SD = 1.87). The least 

endorsed barriers included thinking interventions would not work (M = 2.82, SD = 1.78), lack of 

administrative support (M = 3.36, SD = 2.06), lack of communication/support from school psychologist 

(M = 3.37, SD = 1.79), and ineffectiveness of previous  interventions suggested (M = 3.55, SD = 

1.77). 

Lack of Resources was the most highly endorsed factor by elementary teachers (M = 4.76, SD = 1.67), 

followed by Lack of Training (M = 3.88, SD = 1.61), and then Other Barriers (M = 3.71, SD = 1.43). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

17 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

3.2.2 Secondary Teachers 

For secondary teachers, the most highly endorsed barriers to implementing empirically-based practices 

to address stigma included class size (M = 5.17, SD = 1.93), lack of time to implement interventions 

(M = 4.80, SD = 1.96), and lack of time to create interventions (M = 4.68, SD = 1.96). The least 

endorsed barriers included thinking interventions would not work (M = 3.09, SD = 1.93), 

ineffectiveness of previous interventions suggested (M = 3.36, SD = 1.89), and lack of administrative 

support (M = 3.55, SD = 2.03). 

Lack of Resources was the most highly endorsed factor by secondary teachers (M = 4.57, SD = 1.83), 

followed by Other Barriers (M = 3.95, SD = 1.51), and then Lack of Training (M = 3.93, SD = 1.83). 

 

4. Discussion 

The purpose of the current study was to examine the influences on teachers’ attempts to address 

disability stigma in the classroom. Such stigma had been shown to negatively affect children in 

numerous varied ways and research had provided support for empirically-based practices to reduce it 

within the classroom. However, evidence had also been found that teachers often were not 

implementing such practices. Two research questions were addressed in the present study. The first 

question further assessed the extent to which teachers employ empirically-based practices to address 

stigma in the classroom. The second question examined the barriers preventing teachers from 

implementing such practices in their classrooms. 

4.1 Employment of Empirically-Based Practices 

It was hypothesized that all teachers would report using at least one practice to attempt to address 

stigma, although not all teachers would report implementing an empirically-based practice. Frequency 

analysis revealed that for each grade level set, approximately 90% of teachers (87% for secondary and 

93% for elementary teachers) reported using at least one practice in their classroom to attempt to 

address stigma, whereas roughly 89% (85% for secondary and 92% for elementary teachers) 

implemented at least one empirically-based practice. This is consistent with prior findings that every 

teacher does not implement empirically-based practices in the classroom (Cramer, 2015; Segall, 2011; 

Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016). However, greater percentages of teachers than predicted did 

report implementing these practices. This study serves as an examination of teachers’ use of 

empirically-based practices specifically to address disability stigma, as previous studies did not provide 

information about practices for this purpose in particular. 

Furthermore, the present study adds to the body of knowledge on teachers’ use of empirically-based 

practices to address disability stigma by providing information on frequency of implementation of 

specific types of practices. Although research had suggested that advocacy based practices were the 

least commonly used (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; Murman et al., 2014), the 

specific practices and comparison between social contact and educational practices was uncertain. The 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

18 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

current study was consistent with the literature proposing that advocacy practices are the least 

commonly implemented. Additionally, it revealed that the most frequently implemented practices 

involved social contact, through meaningful contact within the classroom and peer support methods 

between students with and without disabilities. Fortunately, research has suggested that social contact 

may be the most effective type of practice to reduce disability stigma (Corrigan & Shapiro, 2010; 

Ferrari, 2016; Mann & Himelein, 2008; Staniland & Byrne, 2013). 

Another significant finding on use of empirically-based practices to address stigma was that the 

presence of school-wide efforts for this purpose, as well as teachers’ increased involvement in these 

efforts, made them significantly more likely to implement these practices in their own classrooms. This 

finding held constant for all grade levels and aligns with research on the positive influence of 

school-wide initiatives on school climate, and in turn, on classroom climate (Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 

2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 2015; Harrison & Thomas, 2014). In other words, school-wide initiatives 

increase positive school climate, which is characterized by supportive student teacher relationships, 

reduced behavior problems, and high academic achievement (Bear, 2010). This improved and more 

supportive atmosphere both directly improves classroom climate and also encourages teachers to 

further support their students. Based on the additional evidence from this study, it may be ascertained 

that an effective way to increase efforts to address stigma in the classroom may be to begin at the 

school level. 

4.2 Barriers to Implementation 

It was hypothesized that the most commonly reported barriers to implementing empirically-based 

practices to address disability stigma would be lack of training, administrative support, and time. 

Descriptive analyses revealed that for the overall sample, the elementary sample, and the secondary 

sample, the highest endorsed barriers included all of the items involving a lack of time, as well as those 

detailing class size, lack of materials, and being overwhelmed from teaching duties. The presence of 

the factor of lack of time among the most frequently endorsed barriers is consistent with the literature 

(Yu et al., 2016). Additionally, the impeding effects of class size, lack of materials, and overabundance 

of responsibilities have been suggested by previous research (Dorsey et al., 2016; Lee, 2014; Weisman 

et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016).  

However, it was interesting that these barriers were more highly endorsed than the barriers of lack of 

training and administrative support, which were predicted to be among the most endorsed. This may be 

due to progress in these areas in recent years that may not have been captured in prior publications 

(Bell et al., 2011; Campbell, 2012; Cramer, 2015; Segall, 2011). Therefore, these findings from the 

current study provide additional, updated information that may be drawn upon in efforts to decrease 

barriers for teachers to implementing empirically-based practices to address stigma in the classroom. 

4.3 Implications for Practice 

The findings from the present study on implementation and barriers to using empirically-based 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

19 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

practices to address stigma have several practical implications for school psychologists, administrators, 

and educational institutions. The results from the analysis of the types of empirically-based practices 

already being used by teachers provide implications for future practice in the school setting. In 

particular, teachers reported the most implementation of several social contact based practices to 

address stigma. These practices, which have been found to reduce stigma by challenging stereotypes 

and attitudes through first person interactions, have been identified in some studies as the most 

effective method to combat stigma (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Dunn, 2016; Ferrari, 2016; Mann & 

Himelein, 2008). Due to this previous research and the findings from the present study, school 

psychologists and administrators should consider simply encouraging the continued use of these 

practices. Additionally, the school psychologist could guide teachers to discuss with one another how 

social contact is already being used in their classrooms in order to inspire the remaining teachers to 

implement these types of efforts. The school psychologist may also explain to teachers, either through 

professional development or individualized consultation, how to further build on the use of social 

contact practices by adjusting or adding elements of education or advocacy efforts as well, in order to 

further contest disability stigma. This focus on social contact efforts should be balanced with additional 

information on alternative, effective strategies of addressing stigma through educational or advocacy 

efforts. 

Additional implications for school practice may be drawn from the findings on school-wide initiatives 

to increase acceptance and their association with teachers’ use of additional practices in their 

classrooms. Prior research has also demonstrated the affirmative effect of school-wide initiatives on 

positive school climate, which in turn affects classroom climate and practices (Bear, 2010; Bear et al., 

2015; Emmer & Sabornie, 2015; Harrison & Thomas, 2014). Therefore, implementing school-wide 

initiatives or advocacy efforts would benefit students both directly by improving student teacher 

relationships, creating a supportive community, and cultivating social emotional development, and 

indirectly by increasing teachers’ use of further efforts to increase acceptance in their classrooms. 

These school-wide efforts may include clubs or school-wide campaigns, such as School-Wide Positive 

Behavior Supports, Pink Shirt Day, National Bullying Prevention Month, Safe School Ambassadors, or 

Best Buddies, aimed at reducing stigma and stereotypes of individuals with disabilities or those who 

are diverse in any nature. Although these initiatives should be supported by the administration and 

school psychologist, engaging teachers in the leadership may further improve their attempts to increase 

acceptance in their own classrooms, based on the findings in the present study that the level of teacher 

involvement in school-wide campaigns is related to their use of practices within their classrooms. 

Examination of teachers’ reported barriers to implementing efforts to address stigma provides further 

implications for school based practice. This analysis revealed that the constraints of time, limited 

materials, class size, and feelings of being overwhelmed were barriers to attempting to address stigma 

in the classroom, consistent with the literature (Dorsey et al., 2016; Lee, 2014; Weisman et al., 2016; 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

20 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Yu et al., 2016). School psychologists and administration should provide support to teachers in 

overcoming these barriers. Specifically, professional development led by school psychologists or other 

experts could help teachers by providing specific examples of how to address disability stigma through 

education, social contact, or advocacy based practices to prevent teachers from having to spend the 

time researching empirically-based practices themselves. These sessions could also aid teachers in 

understanding how to incorporate attempts to address stigma into their class schedule without adding 

any time burden. For instance, the teachers could integrate instruction about disabilities and related 

stigma into their already existing subject curriculums (Dunn, 2016; Eisenman & Tascione, 2002; NASP, 

2010; Ventieri et al., 2011; Watson, Otey, Westbrook et al., 2004; Weisman et al., 2016). Additionally, 

professional development sessions could be used as a time to explain how large class sizes may be used 

as an advantage in this case, by providing opportunities for social contact practices during already 

scheduled group work for example (Corrigan & Penn, 1999; Dunn, 2016; Ferrari, 2016; Mann & 

Himelein, 2008). In leading the professional development, the school psychologist could also distribute 

ready to use materials for implementing empirically-based practices in the classroom or provide 

information about how to obtain these materials easily and without financial encumbrance. These 

materials could include curriculums for explicit educational programs for this purpose, such as the 

Special Friends or Breaking the Silence curriculums (Dorsey et al., 2016; Meyer & Ostosky, 2016; 

Wahl et al., 2011; Weisman et al., 2016; Yu et al., 2016), books on disabilities or guidelines on selecting 

effective books to utilize to reduce stigma (Gaffney & Wilkins, 2016), practitioner articles that serve as 

ready to use instructions of how to apply empirically-based practices, or guidebooks for clubs or 

advocacy efforts, such as the Let’s Erase the Stigma (LETS) organization (Murman et al., 2014). As 

some of these materials may need to be purchased, administration should consider the vast benefits in 

investing for this critical need. Finally, the school psychologist should make him or herself available to 

teachers following the professional development session in order to support their personalization or 

implementation of empirically-based practices for their classes through continued consultation (Martin, 

H., 2010; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). By providing instruction on practices to reduce disability 

stigma, guidelines on how to overcome time or class size constraints, materials to use in implementing 

practices, and sustained, individualized support to teachers, the school psychologist may also help 

teachers to overcome the barrier of feeling overwhelmed by the prospect of engaging in these practices 

in addition to the more tangible obstacles that each suggestion targets. 

4.4 Limitations of the Study 

There are some limitations of the current study in terms of the sample, data collection methods, and 

factors examined. Specifically, the sample was collected from a single school district and although 

examination of the demographic characteristics revealed similarities to the teaching workforce across 

the country, this may still limit the generalizability of the results. Moreover, the low response rate, 

which may have been due to the distribution of the survey through email, could affect the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

21 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

generalizability of the results. Additionally, the sampling method may have led to a selection bias in 

that teachers who may have more negative attitudes towards individuals with disabilities or who do not 

attempt to address stigma in their classrooms may not have responded to the survey. This may further 

impact the generalizability of the findings, as a specific subset of the population may have been 

unintentionally excluded from the sample. 

The data collection methods utilized in the current study may also serve as a limitation. Although 

teachers were asked in the survey to recall and report which practices they had used to address stigma 

in the past year in their classrooms, they were not actually followed over the course of this year. 

Therefore, teachers may have over or under reported their use of practices due to simple fault of 

memory. Alternatively, collecting the data in a longitudinal manner in which teachers were asked to 

record their use of practices as they were implemented may have provided a more accurate 

representation of use. Additionally, employing surveys as the data collection method, rather than 

observation or interview, may have caused a response bias whereby teachers may have tended to over 

report their use of empirically-based practices in an effort to appear more conscientious. These methods 

may have therefore affected the validity of the results. 

4.5 Conclusions 

The findings of the current study provide information about teachers’ present use of empirically-based 

practices to address disability stigma in the classroom and barriers to the employment of these research 

based practices. The majority of teachers already attempt to address stigma in some way and almost all 

use at least one empirically-based practice. Several of the social contact based practices are the most 

frequently implemented by teachers. Additionally, the most salient barriers teachers experience to 

implementing empirically-based practices to contest stigma include the constraints of time, materials, 

class size, and feeling overwhelmed. Overall, this study revealed that there are distinct factors that may 

be utilized to understand teachers’ attempts to address stigma. This finding is critical as this information 

may be applied by school psychologists, administrators, and educational institutions to develop plans to 

support teachers across the country in efforts to increase acceptance of individuals with disabilities in 

order to affect vast improvement for the academic, social, and emotional outcomes of countless 

students. 

 

Acknowledgement 

The preparation of this manuscript was part of the author’s doctoral dissertation. Therefore, she would 

like to acknowledge her dissertation committee chair, Dr. Marika Ginsburg-Block, as well as her 

dissertation committee members, Dr. Laura Eisenman, Dr. Ratna Nandakumar, and Dr. Julie Hubbard. 

This work was supported by the University of Delaware School of Education PhD Student Dissertation 

Support Award and the Florida Association of School Psychologists Research Award. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

22 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

References 

Adler, A. K., & Wahl, O. F. (1998). Children’s beliefs about people labeled mentally ill. American 

Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(2), 321-326. 

Anti-Defamation League. (2017). No Place for Hate. Retrieved from 

https://www.adl.org/who-we-are/our-organization/signature-programs/no-place-for-hate 

Bear, G. G. (2010). School discipline and self-discipline: A practical guide to promoting prosocial 

student behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 

Bear, G. G., Witcomb, S. A., Elias, M. J., & Blank, J. C. (2015). SEL and Schoolwide positive 

behavioral interventions and supports. In J. Durlak, T. Gullotta, C. Domitrovich, P. Goren, & R. 

Weissberg (Eds.), Handbook of social and emotional learning. Guilford Press.  

Bell, L., Long, S., Garvan, C., & Bussing, R. (2011). The impact of teacher credentials on ADHD 

stigma perceptions. Psychology in the Schools, 48(2), 184-197. 

Bellanca, F. F., & Pote, H. (2013). Children’s attitudes towards ADHD, depression and learning 

disabilities. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 13(4), 234-241. 

Best Buddies International. (2017). Best Buddies Friendship Programs. Retrieved from 

https://bestbuddies.org/what-we-do/friendship/ 

Campbell, J. M., Ferguson, J. E., Herzinger, C. V., Jackson, J. N., & Marino, C. A. (2004). Combined 

descriptive and explanatory information improves peers’ perceptions of autism. Research in 

Developmental Disabilities, 25, 321-339. 

Chamberlain, B., Kasari, C., & Rotheram-Fuller, E. (2007). Involvement or isolation? The social 

networks of children with autism in regular classrooms. Journal of Autism and Developmental 

Disorders, 37, 230-242. 

Chen, P., & Schwartz, I. S. (2012). Bullying and victimization experiences of students with autism 

spectrum disorders in elementary schools. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 

27(4), 200-212. 

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: 

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 

Corrigan, P. W., Morris, S., Larson, J., Rafacz, J., Wassel, A., Michaels, P., Wilkniss, S., Batia, K., & 

Rusch, N. (2010). Self-stigma and coming out about one’s mental illness. Journal of Community 

Psychology, 38(3), 259-275. 

Corrigan, P. W., & Penn, D. L. (1999). Lessons from social psychology on discrete psychiatric stigma. 

American Psychologist, 54(9), 765-776. 

Corrigan, P. W., & Shapiro, J. R. (2010). Measuring the impact of programs that challenge the public 

stigma of mental illness. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 907-922. 

Cramer, E. (2015). Shifting least restrictive environments in a large urban school district. Journal of 

Urban Learning Teaching and Research, 11, 40-49. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

23 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Crisp, A. H., Gelder, M. G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000). Stigmatisation of people 

with mental illnesses. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 4-7. 

Dorsey, E. A., Mouzourou, C., Park, H., Ostrosky, M. M., & Favazza, P. C. (2016). Teacher perceptions 

of two multi-component interventions: Disability awareness and science. Topics in Early 

Childhood Special Education, 36(2), 103-114. 

Dunn, D. S. (2016). Teaching about psychosocial aspects of disability: Emphasizing 

person–environment relations. Teaching of Psychology, 43(3), 255-262. 

Eisenman, L. T., Pell, M. M., Poudel, B. B., & Pleet-Odle, A. M. (2015). “I think I’m reaching my 

potential”: Students’ self-determination experiences in an inclusive high school. Career 

Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 38(2), 101-112. 

Eisenman, L.T., & Tascione, L. (2002). “How come nobody told me?” Fostering self-realization 

through a high school English curriculum. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17(1), 

35-46. 

Emmer, E. T., & Sabornie, E. J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of classroom management (2nd ed.). New 

York, NY: Routledge. 

Esters, I. G., Cooker, P. G., & Ittenbach, R. F. (1998). Effects of a unit of instruction in mental health on 

rural adolescents’ conceptions of mental illness and attitudes about seeking help. Adolescence, 

33(130), 469. 

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: 

Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160. 

Fellner, G. (2015). The problem is education not “special education”. Cultural Studies of Science 

Education, 10, 1089-1101. 

Ferrari, A. (2016). Using celebrities in abnormal psychology as teaching tools to decrease stigma and 

increase help seeking. Teaching of Psychology, 43(4), 329-333. 

Gaffney, M., & Wilkins, J. (2016). Selecting picture books featuring characters with autism spectrum 

disorder: Recommendations for teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 

1024-1031. 

Geisler, J., Heidlberg, S., & Van Velsor, S. (2014). OK2TALK: Using Tumblr to give youth a voice to 

discuss mental illness. Paper presented at the National Conference on Health Marketing and 

Media, Atlanta, GA. 

Gillespie-Lynch, K., Brooks, P. J., Someki, F., Obeid, R., Shane-Simpson, C., Kapp, S. K., Daou, N., & 

Smith, D. S. (2015). Changing college students’ conceptions of autism: An online training to 

increase knowledge and decrease stigma. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 

2553-2566. 

Hardman, M. L., & Clark, C. (2006). Promoting friendship through Best Buddies: A national survey of 

college program participants. Mental Retardation, 44(1), 56-63. 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

24 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Katz, J., Porath, M., Bendu, C., & Epp, B. (2012). Diverse voices: Middle years students’ insights into 

life in inclusive classrooms. Exceptionality Education International, 22(1), 2-16. 

Lee, J. (2014). Predictors of teachers’ intention to refer students with ADHD to mental health 

professionals: Comparison of U.S. and South Korea. School Psychology Quarterly, 29(4), 

385-394. 

Lequia, J. (2015). Social acceptance of students with significant disabilities by general education peers 

in inclusive elementary school settings (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wisconsin-Madison, 

Madison, WI.  

Ludwikowski, W. M., Vogel, D., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Attitudes toward career counseling: The 

role of public and self-stigma. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(3), 408-416. 

Mann, C. E., & Himelein, M. J. (2008). Putting the person back into psychopathology: An intervention 

to reduce mental illness stigma in the classroom. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 

43, 545-551. 

Martin, H. J. (2010). Improving training impact through effective follow-up: techniques and their 

application. Journal of Management Development, 29(6), 520-534. 

Martin, J. M. (2010) Stigma and student mental health in higher education. Higher Education Research 

& Development, 29(3), 259-274. 

McAuliffe, M. D., Hubbard, J. A., & Romano, L. J. (2009). The role of teacher cognition and behavior 

in children’s peer relations. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 665-677. 

Meyer, L. E., & Ostosky, M. M. (2016). Impact of an affective intervention on the friendships of 

kindergarteners with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 35(4), 200-210. 

Meyers, L. S., Gamst, G., & Guarina, A. J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and 

interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

MHA. (2017). Mental Health Association of Palm Beach County, Inc. Retrieved from 

http://www.mhapbc.org/ 

Ministry of Education. (2012). Pink Shirt Day. Retrieved from 

http://www.erasebullying.ca/resources/resources-pink-shirt.php 

Morrow, M. T., Hubbard, J. A., & Swift, L. E. (2014). Relations among multiple types of peer 

victimization, reactivity to peer victimization, and academic achievement in fifth-grade boys and 

girls. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 60(3), 302-327. 

Murman, N. M., Buckingham, K. C., Fontilea, P., Villanueva, R., Leventhal, B., & Hinshaw, S. P. 

(2014). Let’s Erase the Stigma (LETS): A quasi-experimental evaluation of adolescent-led school 

groups intended to reduce mental illness stigma. Child Youth Care Forum, 43, 621-637. 

NASP. (2010). Children’s mental health promotion and support: Strategies for educators. Bethesda, 

MD: Williams, B. B., Boyle, K., White, J. M., & Sinko, A. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

25 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of education statistics, 2015 (NCES 

Publication No. 2016-014). Washington, DC. 

Oates, R. L. (2023). Disability stigma perspectives and practice survey: Predicting teacher efforts to 

improve acceptance. Current Research in Psychology and Behavioral Science, 4(2). 

O’Driscoll, C., Heary, C., Hennessy, E., & McKeague, L. (2012). Explicit and implicit stigma towards 

peers with mental health problems in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and 

Psychiatry, 53(10), 1054-1062. 

Ohan, J. L., Ellefson, S. E., & Corrigan, P. W. (2015). Brief report: The impact of changing from 

DSM-IV “Asperger’s” to DSM-5 “Autistic Spectrum Disorder” diagnostic labels on stigma and 

treatment attitudes. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 3384-3389. 

Ohan, J. L., Visser, T. A., Moss, R. G., & Allen, N. B. (2013). Parents’ stigmatizing attitudes toward 

psychiatric labels for ADHD and depression. Psychiatric Services, 64(12), 1270-1273. 

Pacer Center, Inc. (2016). National Bullying Prevention Month. Retrieved from 

http://www.pacer.org/bullying/nbpm/ 

Park, M., & Chitiyo, M. (2011). An examination of teacher attitudes towards children with autism. 

Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 11(1), 70-78. 

Power, M. J., & Green, A. M. (2010). The Attitudes to Disability Scale (ADS): Development and 

psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(9), 860-874. 

Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual 

Review of Psychology, 52, 471-99. 

Salinger, R. (2020). Empirically based practices to address disability stigma in the classroom. Journal 

of Applied School Psychology, 36(3), 324-345. 

Segall, M. J. (2011). Exploring student and teacher variables relating to inclusion of students with 

autism spectrum disorder in general education classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). University of 

Georgia, Athens, GA. 

Segall, M. J., & Campbell, J. M. (2012). Factors relating to education professionals’ classroom 

practices for the inclusion of students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism 

Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1156-1167. 

Sirey, J. A., Bruce, M. L., Alexopoulos, G. S., Perlick, D. A., Raue, P., Friedman, S. J., & Meyers, B. S. 

(2001). Perceived stigma as a predictor of treatment discontinuation in young and older 

outpatients with depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 479-481. 

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2017). Teaching Tolerance. Retrieved from http://www.tolerance.org/ 

Staniland, J. J., & Byrne, M. K. (2013). The effects of a multi-component higher-functioning autism 

anti-stigma program on adolescent boys. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 

2816-2829. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/ct                        Children and Teenagers                        Vol. 6, No. 3, 2023 

26 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

The Department of Safe Schools. (2017). Safe Schools. Retrieved from 

https://www.palmbeachschools.org/safeschools/ 

The School District of Palm Beach County. (2017). The 2017 Wellness Annual Report. Retrieved from 

https://www.palmbeachschools.org/wppannualreport/bullying/ 

Thompson, K. D. (2017, February 20). Wear pink, stop a school bully in Palm Beach County. Palm 

Beach Post. Retrieved from 

http://wpbc.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/02/20/wear-pink-stop-a-school-bully-in-palm-beach-co

unty/ 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon 

General—Executive summary. Rockville, MD: U. S.  

Ventieri, D., Clarke, D. M., & Hay, M. (2011). The effects of a school-based educational intervention 

on preadolescents' knowledge of and attitudes towards mental illness. Advances in School Mental 

Health Promotion, 4(3), 5-17. 

Vogel, D. L., Bitman, R. L., Hammer, J. H., & Wade, N. G. (2013). Is stigma internalized? The 

longitudinal impact of public stigma on self-stigma. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(2), 

311-316. 

Vogel, D. L., Shechtman, Z., & Wade, N. G. (2010). The role of public and self-stigma in predicting 

attitudes toward group counseling. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(7), 904-922. 

Vogel, D. L., Wade, N. G., & Hackler, A. H. (2007). Perceived public stigma and the willingness to seek 

counseling: The mediating roles of self-stigma and attitudes toward counseling. Journal of 

Counseling Psychology, 54(1), 40-50. 

Wahl, O. F., Susin, J., Kaplan, L., Lax, A., & Zatina, D. (2011). Changing knowledge and attitudes with 

a middle school mental health education curriculum. Stigma Research and Action, 1(1), 44-53. 

Watson, A. C., Otey, E., Westbrook, A. L., Gardner, A. L., Lamb, T. A., Corrigan, P. W., & Fenton, W. S. 

(2004). Changing middle schoolers’ attitudes about mental illness through education. 

Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(3), 563-572. 

Weisman, H. L., Kia-Keating, M., Lippincott, A., Taylor, Z., & Zheng, J. (2016). Mental health stigma 

prevention: Pilot testing a novel, language arts curriculum-based approach for youth. Journal of 

School Health, 86(10), 709-716. 

Yu, S., Ostrosky, M. M., Meyer, L. E., Favazza, P. C., Mouzourou, C., & van Luling, L. (2016). Using 

teacher impression journals to improve intervention effectiveness. Topics in Early Childhood 

Special Education, 35(4), 245-255. 


