2019_International Journal of Psychology 2019_23_Book 1.indb SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS International Journal of Psychology: Biopsychosocial Approach 2019 / 23 ISSN 1941-7233 (Print), ISSN 2345-024X (Online) https://doi.org/10.7220/2345-024X.23.6 PSYCHOME TRIC PROPERTIES OF THE LITHUANIAN VERSION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF DISABILIT Y SC ALE  RE VISED ADSR: PILOT STUDY Laura Alčiauskaitė,1 Liuda Šinkariova Vytautas Magnus University, Lithuania Abstract. The internal consistency reliability and structure-related validity of the Lithu- anian version of the Acceptance of Disability Scale – Revised (ADS-R), a 32-item instru- ment originally developed to assess an individual’s adaptation to disability, was the focus of the research study. The translated instrument was completed by 274 mobil- ity impaired individuals aged from 18 to 80. In this pilot study, it was found that the Lithuanian version of ADS-R had preliminary sufficient internal consistency reliability and structure-related validity similar to those reported by the authors of the original instrument. However, this Lithuanian version still needs further studies with a larger sample and more specific disability representation for exploring the psychometric properties more thoroughly. Nevertheless, in that there are few instruments on ad- aptation that have already been translated and used with the Lithuanian population, the authors believe that this pilot study is a very important first step in the process of creating a valid and reliable instrument. Key words: acceptance of disability, psychometric properties of the questionnaire, ADS-R, pilot study. INTRODUC TION People with disabilities represent the largest minority group in the world. According to statistical data, currently around 10% of the world’s population, or roughly 650 million people, live with a disability (Disabled world, 2018). Recent Lithuanian statistics revealed over 242,000 people 1 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Laura Alčiauskaitė, De- partment of Psychology, Vytautas Magnus University, Jonavos g. 66-327, LT-44191 Kaunas, Lithuania. E-mail: laura.alciauskaite@vdu.lt 113 Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 114 have a disability, which is also around 10% of the Lithuanian population. Mobility disability is among the most common types of disability, espe- cially for older adults, and contains over 31% of all Lithuanian individu- als with a disability (Lithuanian Ministry of Social Security and Labour, 2018). Like everyone, people with disabilities desire to achieve acceptance and inclusion in society. Sociopolitical definitions of disability, the inde- pendent living movement, improved media and social messages, obser- vation and consideration of environmental barriers, and the implemen- tation of Declaration of Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities have all transpired to influence how a person is accepting his or her disability (Harpur, 2012; Mallett & Runswick-Cole, 2014). Despite all these improvements, many challenges remain for people with disabilities, and they continue to be affected by stigma and preju- dice. They repeatedly contend with various issues of successful inclusion of the society, and pivotal to the societal acceptance of disabilities is the degree to which the individuals accept their own physical disabilities (Lee & Moore, 1998). The concept of acceptance of disability was developed by Beatrice Wright (1960, 1983) based on her coping versus succumbing frame- works that underscored the importance of not enabling society to de- value people with disabilities. Wright’s value shift theory was inspired by Kurt Lewin’s (1939) work, which observed great variation in reactions to physical disability. He recognized that many people manage the nega- tive implications of the disability by shifting their values so as to experi- ence increased personal worth. The extent of acceptance of disability is associated with the degree that a person (a) recognizes values other than those that are in direct conflict with the disability; (b) deemphasizes the aspects of physical ability and appearance that contradict his or her disabling condition; (c) does not extend his or her disability beyond actual physical impairment to other aspects of the functioning self; (d) does not compare him or herself with others in the areas of limitations but instead emphasizes his or her own assets and abilities (Dembo, Leviton & Wright, 1975; Lee & Moore, 1998). Over the past century, a large number of measures of psychosocial adaptation to disability have been reported in the literature. Livneh 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 115 & Antonak (2005) discuss at least five measures that target a person’s adjustment to disability, including Millon Behavioral Health Inventory (MBHI; Millon, Green, & Meagher, 1979), Psychosocial Adjustment to Ill- ness Scale (PAIS; Derogatis & Lopez, 1983), Sickness Impact Profile (SIP; Bergner et al., 1976), Reactions to Impairment and Disability Inventory (RIDI; Livneh & Antonak, 1990) and Acceptance of Disability Scale (ADS; Linkowski, 1971). Major strengths inherent in the ADS include its theory-driven ra- tionale, reliability, and use in various samples (Livneh & Antonak, 2005). ADS particularly measures the concept of acceptance of disability and has been used in a number of studies (Townend, Tinson, Kwan & Sharpe, 2010; Nicholls, Lehan, Plaza, Deng, Romero et al., 2012; Carl, 2013). The original ADS consists of fifty self-report items associated with B. Wright’s (1983) theory of loss that focuses on feelings, values, and emotions that may be associated with having a disability. Despite the wide and continued use of the ADS, the psychometric evidence used to support the validity and internal consistency of the measure was called into question in an evaluation by Keany and Gluekauf (1999), who examined the instrument and concluded that the ADS did not provide evidence of a systematic measure of the value change pro- cess. In response to these criticisms and the developer’s initiative to up- date the disability terminology used in some items to reflect sociopoliti- cal and legislative changes, Linkowski and Groomes (2007) revised the original scale in an effort to support empirically the reliability and valid- ity of the scale’s measurement of acceptance of loss theory, as well as to increase its relevance to persons with disability in contemporary society. In their study, Groomes and Linkowski (2007) made the discovery that the number of items could be reduced from fifty to thirty-two, while still maintaining psychometric integrity. They also changed the phraseology of certain items to reveal terminology consistent with broader disability issues and not just those reflective of rehabilitation services. This scale contains four subscales, representing four aspects of adjustment to dis- ability process, which are described as follows (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007; Linkowski, 1971): t� &OMBSHFNFOU�PG�4DPQF�PG�7BMVFT� PS�AFOMBSHFNFOU� �EFGJOFT�UIF� degree to which an individual has enlarged his/her scope of values from Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 116 those that may have been lost with disability to those that do not con- flict with one’s disability; t� 5SBOTGPSNBUJPO� GSPN� $PNQBSBUJWF� 4UBUVT� UP� "TTFU� 7BMVFT� PS� ‘transformation’) describes the degree to which an individual has moved beyond comparing his/her own limitations with others and has begun emphasizing his/her own assets and liabilities; t� $POUBJONFOU�PG�%JTBCJMJUZ� PS�ADPOUBJONFOU� �SFQSFTFOUT�UIF�EF- gree to which one does not generalize from his/her actual impairment to other aspects of functioning not objectively impaired by the disability; t� 4VCPSEJOBUJPO�PG�QIZTJRVF� PS�ATVCPSEJOBUJPO� �EFGJOFT�UIF�FYUFOU� to which individuals can minimize aspects of physical ability and appear- ance when in accordance with their disability. All these processes are equally important and do not occur in any specific order – the ‘enlargement’ process is the first one to occur and is then followed by the other three (Grisr, 2010). Since the revised version of ADS purports to measure the same un- derlying construct it follows that these studies provide initial evidence for the construct validity of the ADS-R. To date there have been not many validation studies of the English version of ADS-R (Carl, 2013; Chen, Kot- bungkair & Brown, 2015). The validity has been tested in Chinese and Thai languages (Chiang, Lai, Livneh, Yeh & Tsai, 2013; Chen, Kotbungkair & Brown, 2015) Since ADS is one of the most frequently used – and reported in the literature – measures of psychosocial adaptation to disability (Livneh & Antonak, 2005), it is important to have a valid and reliable version of this instrument, measuring acceptance of disability in the Lithuanian language. However, translation of the original instrument and its adap- tation to mobility impaired individuals who live in Lithuania does not automatically mean that it is valid or matches the original instrument. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study is to evaluate psychometric properties of the Lithuanian version of the ADS-R, evaluating the accept- ance of disability and its correlates among mobility impaired individuals. 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 117 RESEARCH ME THODS Participants In total, 516 people with mobility disability were invited to partici- pate in this study. To be included in the study, a participant had to match three criteria: (1) be older than 18; (2) have a mobility disability which might be defined as a disabling condition or other health impairment that requires adaptation. People with mobility disabilities often use as- sertive devices or mobility aids, such as crutches, canes, wheelchairs and artificial limbs to obtain mobility; (3) be willing to participate in the study. The final study sample comprised 274 participants with mobility disabilities. Sociodemographic variables associated with this sample included the following sociodemographic characteristics: (a) age range: 18 to 80 years (M = 39.64, SD = 15.11 years); (b) gender: women (59.1%), men (40.9%); (c) marital status: single (43%), married or living with a partner (37.8%), divorced (13.9%) or widowed (5.3%); (d) education: secondary education (32.5%), university education (26.3%), non-university edu- cation (18.9%), vocational training (16.7%), basic education (5.6%); (e) employment status: not employed (51.7%), employed (31.3%), students (12.7%), or employed students (4.3%). The mobility disabilities ranged from mild walking impairment to using crutches, a walker, a wheelchair or other assistive devices. The severity of disability was reported as: (a) moderately severe (34.4%), (b) severe (33.7%), (c) non-severe (15.8%), (d) very severe (13.0%). These cat- egories were formulated according to the law of Disability and Work- ing Capacity Assessment in Lithuania (Disability and Working Capacity Assessment Office under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour of Republic of Lithuania, 2018). Most of the participants had acquired disability (62.8%), while others had congenital disability (37.2%). Age at the time of the acquired dis- ability ranged from 1 to 66 years (M = 14.82, SD = 11.11 years). Most par- ticipants had a visible (48.9%) or partly-visible (31.9%) disability. The ma- jority of respondents (73.4%) reported feeling chronic pain due to their mobility disability and its frequency was reported as: (a) never (16.3%), Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 118 (b) rarely (15.0%), (c) sometimes (32.3%), (d) often (28.8%), (e) most of the time (12.5%). Intensity of perceived chronic pain ranged from 0 to 10 (M = 5.02, SD = 2.57). Instruments Acceptance of disability. The Acceptance of Disability Scale-Revised (ADS-R) is a 32-item self-reporting measure of adjustment to disability among people with disabilities (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). Each state- ment is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Possible scores on the ADS-R range from 32 to 128. A low score reflects a low level of acceptance of the disability. The scale contains four subscales: 1) Transformation from Comparative Status to Asset Values (T) – 9 items, 2) Containment of Disability (C) – 9 items, 3) Enlargement of Scope of Values (E) – 9 items, 4) Subordination of Physique (S) – 5 items. Twenty-two items on the ADS-R are reversed scored, so reverse scor- ing was completed before the data analysis. Procedure The permission for translating and using the ADS-R was given by the major author of the instrument. The translation was organized follow- ing the procedure of back–forward translation according to the recom- mendations prepared by Van de Vijver and Hambleton (1996). One of the authors of this publication translated the instrument, and the trans- lated items were reviewed by the Lithuanian language expert. This was followed by a bilingual (Lithuanian and English speaking) psychologist translating the instrument back into the English language. These trans- lations were reviewed and analyzed by the authors of this publication. Difficult items were discussed after the back–forward translation and corrected by translators proficient in both languages. The completed instrument was then completed by the study partici- pants (adults who have any kind of mobility disability). The sample was a convenience sample, in that only individuals who would agree to par- ticipate in the study were selected. Potential participants were reached 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 119 while collaborating with various Lithuanian associations and organiza- tions for people with disability. The data of the study came from self- administered questionnaires. Respondents were personally asked to fill in the questionnaires, after they had been informed about the purpose and procedure of the study. The study participants were asked to complete the survey containing sociodemographic information questionnaire, ADS-R, and several other questionnaires related to quality of life and psychological well-being (these are not analyzed in this publication). All surveys were completed individually by contacting each respondent in person. Every participant of the study was informed about the main goal of the study, study pro- cedure, data protection, and their right to cancel their participation at any time of the study. Data Analysis The data were analysed using SPSS software, version 23.0 for Win- dows. The confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using the Mplus 6.0 program (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012). Statistical significance was considered when the p-value ≤ .05. RESULTS Reliability The internal consistency of the ADS-R was established by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for four subscales, representing adjustment to disability processes: enlargement of scope of values, subordination of physique, containment of physical effects and transformation from com- parative to asset values. The subscales of the ADS-R showed good internal consistency (Cron- bach’s α = .74–.88, Table 1). Confidence intervals show that all scales are appropriate at least for a group testing. The internal consistencies of all four subscales were very similar to the original sample (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). The overall reliability of the scale was very high (Cron- bach’s α = .958, original sample - Cronbach’s α = .93). Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 120 Table 1. Internal Consistency of the ADS-R Subscales among Lithuanian and Original Samples Acceptance of disability (subscales) Cronbach’s alpha Lithuanian sample (N = 274) AD-R original sample (N = 356) Enlargement of scope of values .84 CI[.81; .87] .82 Subordination of physique .74 CI[.69; .79] .71 Containment of physical effects .88 CI [.86; .90] .88 Transformation from compa- rative to asset values .87 CI [.85; .89] .88 Note: CI – confidence interval; N – study sample. Concurrent Validity The validity of the AD-R was examined analyzing correlations among scores. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated among four subscales scores. Table 2. Concurrent Validity between the ADS-R Subscales Adjustment to disability (subscales) 1 2 3 1. Enlargement of scope of values 2. Subordination of physique .443** 3. Containment of physical effects .757** .553* 4. Transformation from comparative to asset values .784** .617** .890** *p<.05; **p<.001 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 121 The results showed (see Table 2) that the scores of all four ADS-R sub- scales are significantly related to each other, which confirms high con- current validity of the scale. FAC TOR STRUC TURE Exploratory Factor Analysis. First of all, the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted by employing Principal Axis Factoring with Oblimin rotation for ADS-R, and a fixed number of four factors was selected as this structure was reported for original scale. The extracted factors explained 59.6% of variance of the Lithuanian sample, while the extracted factors explained 42.1% of the ADS-R variance of the original sample (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). Unfortunately, the authors of the original study have conducted the EFA only with the primary 50-item ADS but now with the revised version, so we had limited possibilities to compare our results with the original results obtained by Groomes and Linkowski (2007). During the EFA four factors were extracted from 32 items about the acceptance of disability. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin value was .958, exceeding the recommended value of .6 (Cekanavičius & Murauskas, 2002). Bartlett’s test of sphericity reached statistical significance (χ2 = 5465.86, p = .001) meaning that variables are correlated and suitable for factor analysis. The initial eigenvalues were 14.2 for the 1st factor, 2.0 – for the 2nd factor, 1.6 – for the 3rd and 1.3 for the 4th extracted factor. As the results revealed, 1st factor explained 44.35% of variance, 2nd – 6.30%, 3rd – 4.90%, and 4th – only 4.02% of variance of the acceptance of disability. In the original sample, the eigenvalues for the subscales ranged from 12.8 to 1.8 (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). In the original study, 1st factor explained 25.67% of variance, 2nd – 7.44%, 3rd – 5.44%, and 4th – only 3.54% of variance of the acceptance of disability. Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 122 Table 3. Item Loadings for the Components Extracted from Oblimin Rotation for Each Loading Following Principal Axis Factoring for ADS-R Items Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 1. With my disability, all areas of my life are affected in some major way (C) .663 -.038 .000 .064 2. Having my disability, I am unable to do things like people without disabilities do (T) .673 -.160 .168 -.038 3. Disability or not, I am going to make a good in life (E) .006 .155 .609 -.077 4. Because of my disability, I have little to offer other people (T) .617 .122 .101 -.044 5. Good physical appearance and physical ability are the most important things in life (S) .000 .548 .005 -.156 6. A person with a disability is restricted in certain ways, but there is still much s/he is able to do. (E) .008 .219 .625 .319 7. No matter how hard I try or what I accomplish, I could never be as good as the person who does not have my disa- bility (T) .319 .333 .119 -.010 8. It makes me feel very bad to see all the things that people without disabilities can do that I cannot (C) .352 .170 .082 -.346 9. The most important thing in this world is to be physically capable (S) .046 .488 .130 -.244 10. Because of my disability, other peo- ple’s lives have more meaning than my own (T) .246 .299 .111 .496 11. Because of my disability, I feel misera- ble much of the time (C) .530 .091 .223 -.185 12. Though I have a disability, my life is full (E) .236 -.122 .570 -.273 13. The kind of person I am and my accomplishments in life are less impor- tant than those of persons without disa- bilities (T) .245 .274 -.023 .398 14. A physical disability affects a person’s mental ability (S) .188 .536 -.085 .023 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 123 Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 15. Since my disability interferes with just about everything I try to do, it is foremost in my mind practically all of the time (C) .494 .195 .129 -.170 16. There are many things a person with my disability is able to do (E) .167 -.013 .628 .055 17. My disability in itself affects me more than any other characteristic about me (C) .402 .118 .063 -.332 18. There are many more important things in life than physical ability and appearance (E) -.069 .037 .400 -.284 19. Almost every area of life is closed to me (T) .818 -.021 .075 .055 20. My disability prevents me from doing just about everything I really want to do and from becoming the kind of person I want to be (C) .676 .097 .052 -.132 21. I feel like an adequate person re- gardless of the limitation of my disability (E) .103 -.151 .470 .529 22. My disability affects those aspects of life that I care most about (C) .794 .055 -.096 .070 23. A disability such as mine is the worst possible thing that can happen to a per- son (T) .501 .211 .103 -.161 24. You need a good and whole body to have a good mind (S) -.013 .640 .070 .103 25. There are times that I completely forget that I have a disability (E) .137 .016 .524 .000 26. If I didn’t have my disability, I think I would be a much better person. (T) .209 .483 .154 -.051 27. When I think of my disability, it makes me so sad and upset that I am unable to do anything else (C) .492 .211 .121 -.193 28. People with disabilities are able to do well in many ways (T) -.014 .140 .691 -.009 29. I feel satisfied with my abilities and my disability does not bother me too much (E) .349 -.105 .552 .045 Table 3 cont. Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 124 Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 30. In just about everything, my disability is annoying to me so that I can’t enjoy anything (C) .403 .238 .228 -.182 31. Physical wholeness and appearance make a person who s/he is (S) -.075 .620 .040 .053 32. I know what I can’t do because of my disability, and I feel that I can live a full life (E) .093 -.025 .582 -.277 As the results of our EFA revealed (see Table 3), the most items of four extracted factors match four original factors representing four ADS-R subscales. The first and the largest factor was contained by all nine items from the ‘containment’ subscale and four items from the ‘transforma- tion’ subscale. Meanwhile, the second factor matched the ‘subordina- tion’ factor the best – originally this subscale contains five items, and in our results all of them correlated with the same second factor, together with two other items from the ‘transformation’ subscale. Our data also matched the ‘enlargement’ subscale well – eight of nine original items correlated the strongest with the third factor, together with one item from the ‘transformation’ scale. The fourth and the smallest factor con- tained only three items – two items from the ‘transformation’ subscale and one from the ‘enlargement’ subscale. Confirmatory Factor Analysis A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the ADS-R was conducted in order to identify whether the data fit the original ADS-R instrument model created by Groomes & Linkowski (2007). The second-order factor model was tested, where four dimensions of the ADS-R load onto a single general acceptance factor. The MLR estimation was used in the CFA. The statistics of the ADS-R model was evaluated using the following indices (Cekanavičius & Murauskas, 2011): 1) χ2 test (p should be > 0.05); 2) RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) and its lower and upper limits of a 90% confidence interval – RMSEA ≤ .05 indicates a good fit of the model; RMSEA ≤ 0.08 is acceptable; 3) CFI (comparative fit index) – CFI ≥ .95 indicates a good fit; CFI ≥ .90 indicates an acceptable fit. Table 3 cont. 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 125 As the results of our CFA revealed, the original model does not fully fit our data (χ2 = 983.21, df = 460, p = .001). Other fit indices are acceptable (RMSEA =.064, CI[.059-.070]) or very close to being acceptable (CFI = .877). The authors of ADS-R scale did not conduct a confirmatory factor analysis in their original study (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). DISCUSSION The present study examined the psychometric properties of the re- vised version of the Acceptance of Disability Scale among Lithuanian adults who have mobility disability. The results of the Lithuanian version of the ADS-R indicate that Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are acceptable for group testing. The internal consistency of adjustment to disability and its subscales is similar to the original ADS-R data (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). According to the results of our exploratory factor analysis, our data fit four original subscales of ADS-R. The highest fit was found for subordina- tion of physique subscale: originally this subscale contains five items, and in our results all of them correlated with the same second factor, together with two other items from ‘transformation’ scale. The ‘subordination’ sub- scale mostly reflects the personal importance of physical abilities and ap- pearance to the individual with disability (Linkowski, 1971; Grist, 2010). Two items from ‘transformation’ subscale, which were also correlated with the second extracted factor, indicate the individual’s perception of their own worth compared with individuals not having a disability (e. g., ‘If I didn’t have my disability, I think I would be a much better person’), which could meaningfully explain this factor. Our data matched also the ‘enlargement’ subscale well – eight of nine original items correlated the strongest with the third factor, together with one item from ‘transformation’ scale. The ‘enlargement’ subscale represents how individual’s scope of values is extended from values that have been lost to those that do not conflict with their disability (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). All these items, including the one from ‘transformation’ subscale, are formulated in a positive manner, representing an optimistic attitude to one’s life despite having a disability (e. g., ‘There are many things a per- son with my disability is able to do.’), so this factor could really describe the Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 126 enlargement aspect of acceptance process, which is the first step to suc- cessful adaptation to disability. The first factor of our EFA had the highest eigenvalue and contained nine items from the ‘containment’ subscale and four items from the ‘trans- formation’ subscale. According to the authors of the original scale, individu- als who do not spread their disability beyond actual impairment to other aspects of their functioning self, demonstrate the construct of containment of disability effects (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007; Linkowski, 1971). Mean- while, the fourth and the smallest factor from our EFA contained only three items – two items from the ‘transformation’ subscale and one from the ‘en- largement’ subscale. To sum up, our data matched the ‘subordination’, ‘containment’ and ‘enlargement’ subscales quite well. The ‘transformation’ subscale did not fit our data very well – all nine items of this subscale correlated with all four factors. According to Linkowski (1971), the value shift characteristics of transformation require individuals to move beyond comparing, against other individuals, their own limitations and liabilities, toward emphasizing his or her own assets and abilities (Linkowski, 1971; Wright, 1983). As the adjustment to disability is a long-term process, it can probably involve both negative and positive experiences, and maybe that could be the reason why this factor contained both positive and negative statements towards one’s statement. In addition, according to our results, it seems that in the ADS-R scale there were two strong main factors and the other two were weaker, ex- plaining less than 5.0% of variance. The scale should originally contain four subscales which reflect four factors explaining the person’s adjustment to his or her disability. These results may suggest that maybe two factors should be enough for explaining the variance of adjustment. On the other hand, the original study reported quite small eigenvalues of four extracted factors as well (Groomes & Linkowski, 2007). While analyzing the results of CFA, we have found that the original model of ADR-S does not fully fit our data but the results we report look quite promising. While some model fit indices are acceptable, p-value of chi-square test was non-significant in our analysis. The Chi-square test as- sesses how well a theoretical model fits the observed data. If there is a good model fit, p-value should not be statistically significant. However, accord- ing to some researchers, chi-square statistic is very sensitive to sample size 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 127 and is no longer relied upon as a basis for acceptance or rejection (Schler- melleh-Engel et al., 2003; Vandenberg, 2006). Unfortunately, the original authors of ADS-R did not conduct either EFA or CFA of the revised version of the scale, so we were unable to compare our results with the original sample. In general, not many previous stud- ies analyzing EFA and CFA of the ADR-S were found. While testing the Chi- nese version of the questionnaire, EFA with principal component approach showed that this version of ADS-R comprised four primary components, which was equivalent to the original scale and explained 51.11% of total variance. Item composition in each component was also corresponding to the original scale (Chiang, Lai, Livneh, Yeh & Tsai, 2013). Previous studies have demonstrated that the ADS-R has good internal consistency in differ- ent groups of patients with chronic illnesses and disabilities, even though they have not analyzed the factorial structure of the questionnaire (Chiu, Livneh, Tsao & Tsai, 2013; Chen & Crewe, 2009). Most of these studies were implemented with Chinese or Taiwanese respondents, and there are fewer studies using the ADS-R for Western samples (Grist, 2010; Chen, Kotbung- kair & Brown, 2015). Considering that the ADS-R is quite a new instrument, developed in 2007, further research using this scale for other foreign sam- ples would be very welcome and useful. We would also like to point out that a short measure of ADS-R named Brief Adaptation to Disability Scale-Revised (B-ADS-R) also exists. B-ADS-R contains 12 items and is based on the same four value changes postulated by B. Wright. This version was adapted in 2013 and has been tested in the sample Taiwanese respondent with spinal cord injury (Lin et al., 2013). The authors of the scale have received promising results and the B-ADS-R has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. We did not manage to find any more research examining the measurement structure of the B- ADS-R but we believe that the readers could benefit in knowing about this version of the scale and maybe use it for future scientific and rehabilitation research. Though this was the first study related to this topic there are some limitations. First, the non-randomness of the recruited study sample lim- its the generalizability of the findings to Lithuanian adults with mobility disabilities. Second, it was our non-homogeneous sample regarding the cause of disability. The main inclusion criterion for study participants was having a mobility disability, but the medical diagnosis was not important in Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 128 this study. Future studies might concentrate on a specific type of mobility disability (e.g., persons with spinal cord injury or patients with arthritis) for getting more accurate results. Another limitation is that our study lacks lon- gitudinal data and we were unable to do test-retest reliability for the ADS-R. With these limitations, we suggest that additional studies need to be conducted to replicate this study with a larger sample and more spe- cific disability representation. Future studies might include a comparison. Moreover, analyzing other psychometric properties (e.g., test–retest reli- ability) of the Lithuanian version of ADS-R in future studies may provide some additional information. Even with the forgoing limitations, the importance of this study is that this is the first attempt to translate, adapt, and use the instrument measur- ing an individual’s acceptance of disability. This pilot study gives the basis for future research related to psychometric properties of the Lithuanian version of ADS-R. The preliminary reliability and structure-related validity analysis could be especially useful for other researchers who might wish to consider additional research with a Lithuanian sample. We hope that the results of this study will provide a base for other researchers to continue the exploration of the ADS-R with samples of individuals with various kinds of physical disabilities. We also believe that in the near future Lithuanian counselors, psychologists, rehabilitation specialists and researchers could possibly use this version of ADS-R to assess a person’s adjustment to his or her disability and regarding the results, design more effective intervention strategies for dealing with the disability related issues. CONCLUSIONS In this pilot study, it was found that the Lithuanian version of ADS-R has preliminary sufficient internal consistency reliability and structure-related validity. The preliminary conclusion was made that the Lithuanian version of ADS-R, just like the original instrument, has four subscales representing four processes of acceptance of disability. However, it requires additional studies with a larger sample and more specific disability representation for exploring the psychometric properties more thoroughly. Nevertheless, in that there are few instruments on adaptation that have already been trans- lated and used with the Lithuanian population; the authors believe that 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 129 this pilot study is a very important first step in the process of creating a valid and reliable instrument. REFERENCES Bergner, M., Bobbitt, R. A., Kressel, S., Pollard, W. E., Gilson, B. S., & Morris, J. R. (1976). The Sickness Impact Profile: Conceptual Formulation and Methodology for The Development of a Health Status Measure. International Journal of Health Services, 6, 393–415. doi: 10.2190/RHE0-GGH4-410W-LA17 Carl, B. C. (2013). Acceptance of Disability in College Students. Accessed in September, 2018. Retrieved from https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/4180. Chen, R. K., & Crewe, N. M. (2009). Life Satisfaction among People with Progressive Disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation, 75(2), 50–58. Chen, R. K., Kotbungkair, W., & Brown, A. D. (2015). A Comparison of Self-Acceptance of Disability between Thai Buddhists and American Christians. Journal of Rehabilitation, 81(1), 52–62. Chiang, H. H., Lai, N. S., Livneh, H., Yeh, M. L., & Tsai, T. Y. (2013). Validity and Reliability of Chinese Version of Acceptance of Disability Scale-Revised. Tzu Chi Nursing Journal, 12(1), 66–76. Chiu, S. Y., Livneh, H., Tsao, L. L., & Tsai, T. Y. (2013). Acceptance of Disability and Its Predictors among Stroke Patients in Taiwan. BMC neurology, 13(1), 175–181. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-13-175 Cekanavičius, V., & Murauskas, G. (2011). Taikomoji regresinė analizė socialiniuose tyrimuose [Applied Regression Analysis in Social Research]. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Dembo, T., Leviton, G. L., Wright, B. A. (1975). Adjustment to Misfortune: A Problem of Social-Psychological Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Psychology, 22(1), 1–100. Derogatis, L. R., & Lopez, M. (1983). Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS & PAIS-SR): Scoring, Procedures and Administration Manual. Baltimore: Clinical Psychometric Research. Disability Statistics: Information, Charts, Graphs and Tables. Accessed in January, 2018. Retrieved from: https://www.disabled-world.com/disability/statistics/ Elliott, T., Kurylo, M., & Rivera, P. (2002). Positive growth following acquired disability. In C. R. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology (pp. 687–699). New York: Oxford University Press. Grist, V. L. (2010). Relationships between Age of Disability Onset, Adaptation to Disability, and Quality of Life among Older Adults with Physical Disabilities. Accessed in July, 2018. Retrieved from: http://purl.flvc.org/fsu/fd/ FSU_migr_etd-3953 Groomes, D. A. G., Linkowski, D. C. (2007). Examining the Structure of the Revised Acceptance of Disability Scale. Journal of Rehabilitation, 73 (3), 3–9. Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova 130 Harpur, P. (2012). Embracing the New Disability Rights Paradigm: The Importance of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Disability & Society, 27(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1080/09687599.2012.631794 Keaney, K. C. & Gluekauf, R. L. (1999). Disability and value change. In R. P. Marinelli & A. E. Dell Orto (Eds.). The Psychological and Social Impact of Disability (4th ed., pp. 139–151). New York: Springer Publishing Co. Lewin, K. (1939). Field Theory and Experiment in Social Psychology: Concepts and Methods. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 868–896. doi: 10.1086/218177 Li, L., & Moore, D. (1998). Acceptance of Disability and Its Correlates. The Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1), 13–25. doi: 10.1080/00224549809600349 Lin, C. P., Wang, C. C., Fujikawa, M., Brooks, J., Eastvold-Walton, L., Maxwell, K., & Chan, F. (2013). Psychometric Validation of the Brief Adaptation to Disability Scale- Revised for Persons with Spinal Cord Injury in Taiwan. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 27(3), 223–232. doi: 10.1891/2168-6653.27.3.223 Linkowski, D. C. (1971). A Scale to Measure Acceptance of Disability. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 14(4), 236–244. Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. F. (1990). Reactions to Disability: An Empirical Investigation of Their Nature and Structure. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 21(4), 13–21. Livneh, H., & Antonak, R. F. (2005). Psychosocial Adaptation to Chronic Illness and Disability: A Primer for Counselors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 83(1), 12–20. doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2005.tb00575.x Lithuanian Ministry of Social Security and Labour. Neįgalumo statistika ir dinamika [Statistics and Dynamics of Disability]. Accessed in April, 2018. Retrieved from: https://socmin.lrv.lt/lt/veiklos-sritys/socialine-integracija/ neigaliuju-socialine-integracija/statistika-2 Mallett, R., & Runswick-Cole, K. (2014). Approaching Disability: Critical Issues and Perspectives. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315765464 Millon, T., Green, C. J., & Meagher, R. B. (1979). The MBHI: A New Inventory for the Psycho-Diagnostician in Medical Settings. Professional Psychology, 10, 529– 539. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.10.4.529 Nicholls, E., Lehan, T., Plaza, S. L. O., Deng, X., Romero, J. L. P., Pizarro, J. A. A., & Carlos Arango-Lasprilla, J. (2012). Factors Influencing Acceptance of Disability in Individuals with Spinal Cord Injury in Neiva, Colombia, South America. Disability and Rehabilitation, 34(13), 1082–1088. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.631684 Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the Fit Of Structural Equation Models: Tests of Significance and Descriptive Goodness- Of-Fit Measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74. Townend, E., Tinson, D., Kwan, J., & Sharpe, M. (2010). ‘Feeling Sad and Useless’: An Investigation into Personal Acceptance of Disability and Its Association with Depression Following Stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation, 24(6), 555–564. doi: 10.1177/0269215509358934 2019, 23, 113–131 p.Psychometric Proper ties Of The Lithuanian Version Of The Acceptance Of Disability Scale - Revised (Ads-R): Pilot Study 131 Vandenberg, R. J. (2006). Introduction: Statistical and Methodological Myths and Urban Legends: Where, Pray Tell, Did They Get This Idea? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 194–220. doi: 10.1177/1094428105285506 Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating Tests: Some Practical Guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99. Wright, B. A. (1960). Physical Disability: A Psychological Approach. New York, NY: Harper & Row. Wright, B. A. (1983). Physical Disability: A Psychosocial Approach (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. PATOBULINTO NEGALIOS PRIĖMIMO KL AUSIMYNO ADSR LIE TUVIŠKOS VERSIJOS PSICHOME TRINIAI RODIKLIAI: ŽVALGOMASIS T YRIMAS Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova Vytauto Didžiojo universitetas, Lietuva Santrauka. Šio žvalgomojo tyrimo tikslas – išanalizuoti patobulinto negalios priė- mimo klausimyno (angl. „Acceptance of Disability – Revised“, ADS-R) lietuviškos versijos psichometrinius rodiklius. Klausimyną sudaro 32 teiginiai, jo paskirtis – įvertinti asmens prisitaikymą prie turimos negalios. Žvalgomajame tyrime dalyva- vo ir į lietuvių kalbą išverstą klausimyną užpildė 274 įvairaus sunkumo judėjimo negalią turintys asmenys nuo 18 iki 80 metų amžiaus. Tyrimo rezultatai atskleidė, kad lietuviška klausimyno versija pasižymi gana geru vidiniu suderinamumu, jo faktorių struktūra panaši į tą, kurią pateikė šio klausimyno autoriai D. Gromes ir D. C. Linkowski. Visgi, siekiant tiksliau nustatyti klausimyno validumą bei faktorių struktūrą, reikėtų atlikti tolesnius tyrimus su didesne bei negalios atžvilgiu labiau homogeniška imtimi. Mūsų šalyje trūksta lietuviškų klausimynų, matuojančių asmens prisitaikymą, tad šis žvalgomasis tyrimas yra pirmas žingsnis siekiant turė- ti patikimą ir validizuotą instrumentą. Reikšminiai žodžiai: prisitaikymas prie negalios, psichometriniai rodikliai, ADS-R, žvalgomasis tyrimas. Received; 2019-02-06 Accepted: 2019-07-26 CONTENTS EDITORIAL NOTE SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS Chandra Díaz, Po Hu, Douglas R. Tillman, David D. Hof CONCEPTS INFLUENCING ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS TOWARD MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES IN A TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAM Kamonwan Tangdhanakanond, Teara Archwamety TEACHERS’ MISCONCEPTIONS AND CURRENT PERFORMANCE IN IMPLEMENTING STUDENT PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN THAILAND Andrius Šmitas, Loreta Gustainienė IMPORTANCE OF LENGTH OF STUDYING AND ATTITUDES TOWARD OTHERS FOR LIFE SATISFACTION Marija Aušraitė, Kristina Žardeckaitė-Matulaitienė THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRRATIONAL RELATIONSHIP BELIEFS AND CONFLICTRESOLUTION STRATEGIES IN YOUNG ADULTHOOD Tadas Vadvilavičius, Aurelija Stelmokienė DEVELOPMENT OF SCENARIOS FOR LEADERSHIP PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH TO REVEAL THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LEADERS’ DARK TRIAD TRAITS AND FULL RANGE LEADERSHIP STYLES Laura Alčiauskaitė, Liuda Šinkariova PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE LITHUANIAN VERSION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OFDISABILITY SCALE - REVISED (ADS-R): PILOT STUDY Christina L. Chasek, Judith A. Nelson, Rochelle Cade, Kristin Page, Bryan Stare,George Stoupas ADVOCATING FOR ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE RECOVERY: AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL Ekaterina Zakharchuk, Evgeniy Dotsenko, Tamara Khvesko, Julia Andrejeva NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL AND/OR PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS OF CHILDREN’S TRAUMATIC BEHAVIOR UNDER THE AGE OF 10 YEARS INFORMATION THE 22nd INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM IN PSYCHOLOGY AT UNK & VMU: ABSTRACTS CONTRIBUTORS REVIEWERS 2019 INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS